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

diolch

melly1980 wrote: »

the point was and still is that 2 parents earning 7K each can have more money coming into their houshold than someone on 40K. It is not a case of the 40K people priorotising anything, the question is why are we making 2 x 7K earners as well off as a 40K earner because it can and does happen.

I agree it is bang out of order. If they want £40k get out and earn it like the rest of us have to.
And if you do earn £40K, you won't need any benefit at all!!

diolch

melly1980 wrote: »

You did get tax credits. They were called something else then. It was automatically credited to your wages.

No I didn't!! If you are talking about the child allowance in the code number, that was taken back in full because of the level of wage I was earning!

In other words only the poor got the relief for child tax allowance. Higher rate taxpayers had it taken back in extra tax I paid.

diolch

gauly wrote: »

But you didn't just have family allowance, as was pointed out earlier you also had "child tax allowance" and also "married couples tax allowance". These were worth a considerable amount of money, but many people don't seem to have even noticed that they were receiving them!! Child tax/family allowance together were worth more than child benefit is nowadays.

Most countries still have tax allowances for chilren and people seem a lot more tolerant towards something phrased as a tax allowance, rather than calling it a benefit. I recently read that British familes where one parent stays at home now pay more tax than any other western country.

Sorry go check the tax law as it was then.

Child tax allowances were given through the code number, but higher rate taxpayers had it clawed back.

Secondly, the married person's allowance had nothing to do with children, that was to do with the extra responsibilities of being married. Something not many choose to do now!
Besides, that relief was also clawed back for higher rate taxpayers.

And talking about tax rates. the max now is 40% apart from the very rich - they pay 50%

In my day the tax rates went up to the equivalent of 75% for ordinary taxpayers and those with investment income as well saw there tax rates go to 95%!!

And this was at a time when mortgage interest was running at 15%.

diolch

gauly wrote: »

I recently read that British familes where one parent stays at home now pay more tax than any other western country.

And still not as much as they did in the 60's!!!

They have it far too easy today - they need some hard graft under their belt!

DeeMarie89

melly1980 wrote: »

the point was and still is that 2 parents earning 7K each can have more money coming into their houshold than someone on 40K. It is not a case of the 40K people priorotising anything, the question is why are we making 2 x 7K earners as well off as a 40K earner because it can and does happen.

Funny, because when my husband and I earned 14k between us, we most certainly did not have more than 40k coming in!

I agree that certain people will abuse the system by having children purely for benefits, but for those of us who aren't like that, it's darn irritating when we're being told not to have kids because we're on a low income.

Yes, I claim tax credits. They're very helpful, and mean that, along with the salary coming in, I can afford to give my son a decent standard of life while not running up CC debts etc. I could probably scrape by without them, but they're a great help.
However, despite also being entitled to council tax benefit, housing benefit, and probably some form of disability benefits, I don't claim any of them, as I genuinely do not need that extra money, and therefore feel it would be better left in the pot for those who do, rather than filling my pockets and adding to the economic debt.

So please, stop treating us poorer people like criminals because we accept some help, because you'll often find that those of us who accept it feel ashamed enough without you whinging about how you feed our kids.

Also, don't say poor people shouldn't have kids. Yes, I accept some of the help available, but I can tell you now that I love my son an my little bump more than the world, and saying that because I accept help that I shouldn't reproduce is ridiculous, and stupid to deprive me or my children of the happiness and love we have.

Lets be fair, if someone offered you this help back in the day, you'd have bitten their arm off. Just because my husband and I do the crap, low-paid jobs, doesn't mean we should be punished. Someone has to flipping do them, and it's better than living on JSA, HB, CTC, CTB and never trying! Have some darn respect for the fact that we at least try.

allen35

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

However, despite also being entitled to council tax benefit, housing benefit, and probably some form of disability benefits, I don't claim any of them, as I genuinely do not need that extra money, and therefore feel it would be better left in the pot for those who do, rather than filling my pockets and adding to the economic debt.

If you are entitled you should claim and not feel guilty, i wouldn't worry too much about people moaning about their lack of benefits.

Claim it and invest it for your childrens future if you can manage without it.

melly1980

diolch wrote: »

No I am not. My family got family allowance which we chose to save for the kids and not spend it on trinkets and toys! I paid for everything my children and wife ever needed.

Today they get family allowance the same, AND then they get more money in other benefits.

If I could manage to bring a family up on one wage without the help of benefits, so should the OP!

It doesnt matter if your spent it, saved it, snorted coke with it or wipe your @rse on the notes you got from it. You DID get child benefit therefore you were in receipt of benefits.

As I have already pointed out, if you were working, had kids and were married you will have alson got a child tax relief (automatically in your wages) and a married couples tax relief on your wages. These are 2 things that are now given in the tax credits system (so you got these too).

melly1980

diolch wrote: »

No I didn't!! If you are talking about the child allowance in the code number, that was taken back in full because of the level of wage I was earning!

In other words only the poor got the relief for child tax allowance. Higher rate taxpayers had it taken back in extra tax I paid.

you mean like all the tax credits that I get that then 99% of it is taken off me because of my wage?

Its no !!!!!!! different despite how much you protest. You also had a married persons tax relief which is now disguised as a couples element in the tax credits system.

melly1980

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

Funny, because when my husband and I earned 14k between us, we most certainly did not have more than 40k coming in!.

As I have explained about 17 times it is on a like for like basis. Tax credits is based on number of kids. Its no use saying "i have 1 kids and earned 14 K and didnt get 40K. Its about the SPECIFIC scenario at hand.

A couple could earn 14K between tem (actual money with no tax paid if it is split right) and get 14K ACTUAL tax credits which are tax free so a total of 28K. This is the equivalent of a 40K salary as someone on 40K will pay ~11-12K in stoppages.

It is about the ACTUAL money you have in your hand after tax that matters. It isnt a difficult concept.

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

most certainly did not have more than 40k coming in!.

Just to clarify again. A person on 40K does not have 40K "coming in". They have 28K "coming in".

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

I agree that certain people will abuse the system by having children purely for benefits, but for those of us who aren't like that, it's darn irritating when we're being told not to have kids because we're on a low income. .

I havent told you this, whyvare you quoting me?

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

So please, stop treating us poorer people like criminals because we accept some help, because you'll often find that those of us who accept it feel ashamed enough without you whinging about how you feed our kids. .

I havent said this either

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

Also, don't say poor people shouldn't have kids. Yes, I accept some of the help available, but I can tell you now that I love my son an my little bump more than the world, and saying that because I accept help that I shouldn't reproduce is ridiculous, and stupid to deprive me or my children of the happiness and love we have..

Im beginning to think that your mistakening me for someone else

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

Lets be fair, if someone offered you this help back in the day, you'd have bitten their arm off. Just because my husband and I do the crap, low-paid jobs, doesn't mean we should be punished. Someone has to flipping do them, and it's better than living on JSA, HB, CTC, CTB and never trying! Have some darn respect for the fact that we at least try.

aint said this either.

Since you seem confused about the points I make versus something I am not making I will spell it out for you.

Tax credits = good, agree with them in principle but not the level of taper.

Bad side of it - If you take a family with 4 kids then the tax credits system gives them the same amount of income as a 40K salary family. This is disgracefull.

fawd1

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.

Actually, every person has the means to go to university, whether it be from grants, loans, or parental support. If you were on your own financially from the age of 16 then you probably would have been given nothing but grants. Assuming then that you're not in your 60's (where the grants loans system was completely different i.e. virtually nonexistant) then you having spent your life working was a choice, in the same way that the person who carried on studying and not earning any money for at least another five years made a choice to do that. And no one is saying that people on a low income should be punished, maybe people are saying that if you've worked hard enough for a high income, you should actually feel the rewards of it? as it stands, we may as well tell all our kids that it's ok not bother trying too hard as in the end everyone will get a similar sort of salary.