Is £40,000 really a liveable income for families in the UK?

Jimmy_31

RenovationMan wrote: »

Nice attempt at a dodge Graham but the point still works and I'm not letting go.

Most able people can increase their income in some way or other (i.e. evening or weekend jobs), are you saying that those who don't at least seek to increase their income should be ashamed of themselves for receiving increased tax credits?

I dont think it was a dodge.

The hours or days dont come into it.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

However I am still not sure I can see the difference between one pot of taxation called 'tax credits' and another called 'income tax', both are part of the tax system and thus anyone choosing to work part time when they could work full time is choosing to pay less tax than they 'should'?

less than full time is choosing to pay less

This is a somewhat bizzare way of looking at tax credits, and to be honest, I'm really not sure how you have come to question what I am saying.

I've never suggested people should work more to pay more tax. No one has. It's not even what we are talking about.

I've stated enough times what I am talking about. Saying it once again isn't really going to take this conversation any further.

Tax credits are just a benefit. You can get them even if you pay no income tax and never have paid income tax. Working tax credits is basically just a simple way of bumping people up to a living wage. It's a benefit.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

lol, brilliant. :rotfl:

You won't answer because you know you're in the wrong. Your whole argument is based on the premise that you feel that if someone CAN earn more income (and therefore reduce their tax credits) then they should.

I believe you have a single job Graham and don't have an evening or weekend job, so how on earth can you live with yourself, turning down that additional work and instead claiming higher tax credits? By your own rules you are condemned.

I don't even claim Tax Credits.

<sigh>

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

No they certainly shouldn't. However, if the system is set up so that it allows this to happen then I could see why they would.

Then I'd like to know why you are hounding me for suggesting exactly the same as you just did?

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't even claim Tax Credits.

<sigh>

I thought you were a family man with kids, struggling along to make ends meet?

Tsk. I really can't keep up with these ever-changing backstories! :eek:

BTW, RE: Tax Credits. For the record, neither do I, nor should I or anyone else. We're happy to pay for our own kids - it was our decision to have them and we don't expect other people to have to 'chip in' to help us out.

grizzly1911

Aberdeenangarse wrote: »

The whole 'benefits' thing is still a mess and no Government has sorted it out yet. I have a friend who's worth somewhere excess of £4m who was made redundant. Not only did he get a massive redundancy package, but he also claimed Jobseekers allowance in the few weeks he wasn't working, and also claimed for all his travelling expenses for the Interviews he attended!

And paid 40% back in tax;)

heathcote123

MrRee wrote: »

That is the question posed by the BBC.

Just £40,000 is the average that families have to live on per year - I cannot believe it is that little ...... it must be a struggle if it's true - maybe the information is a couple of years old?

Anyway ... interesting read:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15197860

Do you mean 40k before or after tax?

neverdespairgirl

michaels wrote: »

Net pay is just under 1600, as anticipated I get 300 wftc and 200 child benefit. Expenditure: 2.5%, interest only (=£525), £100 petrol, £400 food, £150 gas and electric, £150 council tax, SAHW so no child care...and I exaggerated as I boost my income by a few hundred tax free via stoozing, matched betting, cashback etc.

So you get about £900 a month over your net pay - a total of 2,500 a month.

That works out at living on about a gross £40k p.a. salary.

michaels

Yes and itis easily liveable on in the SE.

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

So you get about £900 a month over your net pay - a total of 2,500 a month.

That works out at living on about a gross £40k p.a. salary.

neverdespairgirl

michaels wrote: »

Actually the equity in the house is not an issue with eligibility for any benefits as far as I know, it is having savings that stops me from getting more benefits, I could have used these savings to pay down the mortgage and thus been entitled to the additional benefits (or indeed gone out and spent them all) but chose not to.

You couldn't have done that - it would have counted as deprivation of capital, so you'd be treated as still having the money.