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

welshmoneylover

michelle1506 wrote: »

By all means do away with tax credits, but bring down the high cost of child care first. That's the real problem here.

No, the real problem is parents who go on to have children they can't afford, rely on other people to bring them up and expect the tax payer to foot the bill.

Parents managed quite well before CTC/WTC and high nursery fees.

michelle1506

I don't think that children should be exclusively for the well off somehow. Nursery fees rose considerably after the introduction of tax credits.

melly1980

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

Hang on there a minute. Some of us would have flipping LOVED to go to uni and be able to finish college. However, some of us had to work as soon as we were old enough. I had to leave home when I was 16, and I had to work my !!! of from when I was 15 in order to support myself. Not everyone has the means to go to university. Just because my circumstances didn't allow me to spend three years of my life dossing through uni having my way paid for me with a loan that, in theory, I may never have to pay back, it doesn't mean that we should be punished. At least we actually work, don't just sit on our !!!!!! claiming every penny the DWP throws our way.

I had to work straight away too, however I graduated via the open uiniversity. I worked 40 - 50 hours per week then studied on a night and weekend. My work holiday entightlement was spent on courses away. I didnt just wake up one day and have a degree because I was fortunate and had all the opportunities just thrown at me quite by random.

melly1980

johnsmithsfan wrote: »

I agree with that, some were fortunate to attend University, others of us HAD to work the minute we left scool. For some people however they can't enjoy the fact they earn a high income since they spend too much time resenting what others may or may not get in tax credits, cb etc. However many of these individuals live up to or over their high incomes and that is why they have so little disposable income. .

The example I have given is nothing to do with low disposable income due to high expendature. The numbers quoted are actual amounts of cash available to spend (before anything comes out) and I will guarentee you that the amount per month I have to spend is barely any more than it was when I was earning 10K less. It is ludicrous. I have essentially been taxed at 73% on my extra earnings....some incentive to do well for yourself hey?

Ayelet

welshmoneylover wrote: »

No, the real problem is parents who go on to have children they can't afford, rely on other people to bring them up and expect the tax payer to foot the bill.

Parents managed quite well before CTC/WTC and high nursery fees.

But it takes the pee when someone on 40k justifies the need for benefits to feed their 4 children.

melly1980

Ayelet wrote: »

But it takes the pee when someone on 40k justifies the need for benefits to feed their 4 children.

I hope your not talking about me.

I havent justified the need at all. Ive stated a fact, if i didnt get any TC or CB at all I would be worse off than someone earning 10K less than me.

You give me one good reason why my tax should be used to make someone on less money sufddenly have more than me. The solution is simple, if people like me are to not have any tax credits then those lower down the scale should be trimmed back too. Only a fcukwit would say that boosting them to a greater level of income than those that dont qualify is fair.

AnxiousMum

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

Hang on there a minute. Some of us would have flipping LOVED to go to uni and be able to finish college. However, some of us had to work as soon as we were old enough. I had to leave home when I was 16, and I had to work my !!! of from when I was 15 in order to support myself. Not everyone has the means to go to university. Just because my circumstances didn't allow me to spend three years of my life dossing through uni having my way paid for me with a loan that, in theory, I may never have to pay back, it doesn't mean that we should be punished. At least we actually work, don't just sit on our !!!!!! claiming every penny the DWP throws our way.

If your impression of attending university is 'dossing through uni having your way aid for you.......that you may never have to pay back', then I doubt that uni would've benefited you any. You would've given up three years of salaried employment, with the intention of earning a low wage (so as not to pay back student loans) if that was the case.
wh
My husband worked full time throughout his B.Sc (hon) degree, and actually did it without any student loans, but also without any help from family. He did his Masters part time while working full time. My son is doing a degree with a medical path - hoping to become a Doctor - fully intent on paying back his student loans as his intention of going to University is to provide himself with a financially stable future (though looking at things, not likely in this country). Neither have come from 'privilege' at all, but both have had to work damned hard to realise their plans.

The point is, there always has been different standards of living for people on various salaries - and I do not see why somebody with four children earning minimum wage should be having the same lifestyle as somebody with the stresses, extended hours, responsibility etc. that comes with a £40k job. What is the incentive for those people to actually work towards that goal?

I think the main thing here is that people need to learn to live within their means, and the government should be there to ensure that people get the necessities met.

As two people who both work term time only, if I compare our household income with somebody on minimum wage or benefits who also has five children - the fact that they can (and do) take their children on vacation during the cheaper times of year, ie, term time, and the fact that we can't do that as per our job contracts, I think with the difference in costs the lower income family might just come out ahead of us each year with holiday savings!

You want something, you strive for it, you earn it - you want more - you strive harder.

michelle1506

Well what I'm about to say will not be popular, to go back to the original point made by the op, 'No' I don't think that while earning 57k there ought to be entitled to state help, and especially for only one child. I'm having twins, earning a lot less and did not get any of the 'extras' either which others got only a few months before.

melly1980

michelle1506 wrote: »

Well what I'm about to say will not be popular, to go back to the original point made by the op, 'No' I don't think that while earning 57k there ought to be entitled to state help, and especially for only one child. I'm having twins, earning a lot less and did not get any of the 'extras' either which others got only a few months before.

I dont think that there is anything wrong with that opinion because you are considering both the income and the number of children that the couple have. Some will agree with the opinion and others not but at least you have considered the facts at hand. Too many people dont do this and just make wild claims like those who have x money shouldnt get anything....,.

michelle1506

Thank you Melly, for what it's worth I think the threshold of 40k is a tad low for people with say two or more children, and could be higher..