Child tax credit limit reduced to £26,000

MUMBO

I also received one of those letters today about tax credit being cut. It has been well publicised that benefits for non workers are to be capped at £26000, but it has not been publicised that workers are also to be penalized and more so than non workers. If this act is masquerading as a way to get people back into work (when there are not enough jobs about and redundancies left right and centre) then why are they taking money off the workers and leaving them with less to live on than the unemployed?

melly1980

MUMBO wrote: »

I also received one of those letters today about tax credit being cut. It has been well publicised that benefits for non workers are to be capped at £26000, but it has not been publicised that workers are also to be penalized and more so than non workers. If this act is masquerading as a way to get people back into work (when there are not enough jobs about and redundancies left right and centre) then why are they taking money off the workers and leaving them with less to live on than the unemployed?

you are getting confused, the 26K is nothing to do with the other 26K.

These changes have been detailed all along the only difference is that it just so happens that through changes described over a year ago a working person with a 26K wage and one child wil have passed a boundary.

shop-to-drop

I am really surprised at there being so many people who obviously take no notice of the chancellors yearly budget. I wouldn't expect everyone to actually watch it but definitely to check out the summaries and discussions in the aftermath and assess how they will be financially affected. If people take no notice of the politics that affects them so directly how on earth do they make a decision who to vote for?

birkee

Too many posts now, to read them all at this time, but as a comment to some.

My life was lived as if there were NO benefits or entitlement (dreadful misuse of the word!), so if the whole sytem fell over, we could still manage.

Seems these days, lots of people are living their lives from other peoples pockets, and would I care if the benefits system collapsed? Not MY problem.
They can try begging door to door for food, and then try telling the donor that it's their entitlement and they must be fed.
What happened to the days when benefits were received with grateful thanks?

ekkygirl

I don't agree with the bashing by the keyboard warriors, of the OP for using the CB for dancing lessons. Its all tosh she could have said she used it for bread and use some to the earnings fior dancing lessons, swings and roundabouts, What I hate is that profitable companies make money off the back of the taxpayer! 16 hour contracts to maximise the opportuinity of benefits available, miinimum wage for the same reason.
I believe you should be able to live off your wages and not rely on any external agency to facillitate that. Tesco make millions and yet their employees can't live of a full time wage and the taxpayer has to subsidise some of them to have a decent standard of living.
I hate how big companies evade tax by doing things that Joe Public would be jailed for. I hate politicians line their own pockets, buying luxury goods/housing/food on expenses, paid for by the taxpayer. I hate how the Tax man chases the sitting ducks and bleeds them dry whist ignoring the big bucket of money owed by clever company accountants
I could not grudge Child Benefit to a couple on £26.000 even if it does pay for dance lessons

Things have to change but it is always the little people that bear the brunt. The bankers bonus for screwing all of us were obscene, not them for taking them, just the system that allowed it!

I have no under 18's in my house. I work full time Hubby self employed builder taxed to death, We're ok but that doesn't stop me caring about those who aren't

MUMBO

melly1980 wrote: »

you are getting confused, the 26K is nothing to do with the other 26K.

These changes have been detailed all along the only difference is that it just so happens that through changes described over a year ago a working person with a 26K wage and one child wil have passed a boundary.

Yes you are right I have got confused with the two 26ks. However I still think it is very unfair that a non working family can have up
to 26k net in benefits when we are to lose our only benefit (apart from child benefit) of £10per week and our total net income from working is about 4k less. I do stand corrected though.

melly1980

MUMBO wrote: »

Yes you are right I have got confused with the two 26ks. However I still think it is very unfair that a non working family can have up
to 26k net in benefits when we are to lose our only benefit (apart from child benefit) of £10per week and our total net income from working is about 4k less. I do stand corrected though.

to be fair its based on the number of children you have. A non working person with 1 child would get nowhere near 26K nett. Still though, it p***es people off just how much our system gives out.

mkw

sorry to but in slightly change the subject but without phoning hm callcenter and giving them every personal detail apart from the size of the hole in my a..e.i have three children and our household income gross averages the new tax credit figures so this coming April they have informed us we may lose this credit.I have only ever put two children on claim forms over the years as my eldest has lived elsewhere.does anyone know if my CSA payments for him are taken into account on my household earnings.

[Deleted User]

mkw wrote: »

sorry to but in slightly change the subject but without phoning hm callcenter and giving them every personal detail apart from the size of the hole in my a..e.i have three children and our household income gross averages the new tax credit figures so this coming April they have informed us we may lose this credit.I have only ever put two children on claim forms over the years as my eldest has lived elsewhere.does anyone know if my CSA payments for him are taken into account on my household earnings.

No CSA payments are not taken into account. It is still your gross income before you make these payments.

System

melly1980 wrote: »

I will use an example to try to make the point clear.

A family work and receive a wage....call the wage x. Because the family isnt paid well x isnt enough so they have their money topped up. (something i agree should happen)

After the top up the family now have z amount of money. However with Z the family can afford numerous items that most would call luxury.

What I am saying is the system shouldn't top up from x to z, there should be some middle ground (bizarrely called y in this example) where the family have had their poor wage topped up but not to the extent where they can have all these luxuries that z provides.

This is soo true.

But at the same time, I think everything should be strictly means tested. Think back to when you where at school, there were kids in your class who had no interest in studying - they were more interested in the bell ringing so they could go to the smokers corner. These people probably didn't even sit their basic exams, and therefore, struggled to get jobs after school. Fast forward 20 years. These people have wisened up, and became half decent people, and have jobs, but they are low paying. Should these people's wages be topped up? IMO I don't think so - they made their choices.

Then think of the people who did try hard at school, went to uni, got decent jobs, then got hit with the recession and lost their job, and need to fight to get any financial help while looking for a job.

I think the system is soo messed up, and every case should be dealt with on an individual basis. Yeah, I feel sorry for people who were bums for the first 20 years of their lives, but should tax payers be paying for their mistakes?

Unless people show a real willingness to work, any job, any hours, & showed a real effort to better themselves, then I don't think they should be getting their wages topped up...harsh I know, but I work front line customer service and I see all sorts of people claim benefits but still have the latest gadgets and nice clothing - these are luxuries I cannot always afford, it irks me slightly to say the least.