Child tax credit limit reduced to £26,000

mummyroysof3

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

No worries until Tax Credits goes and become part of the Universal Credit.

It seems that under UC, both parents will have work conditions put on them if they still want welfare payments for their children. The days of the state picking up the tab for a stay-at-home parent, seems to be over.

thats ok as im already putting plans in place to be able to look for a decent job when the time comes

FBaby

melly1980 wrote: »

The only comments on this board that I have ever complained about regarding the loss of any benefitis if you lose that benefit but people who have more cash than you get it. This is fundametally unfair and wrong. .

Unfortunately, with this sort of cuts, it is exactly what is happening. With single parents able to claim full benefits AND keep whatever maintenance they receive, more and more single parent not working end up with much more disposable income than those working. I can imagine the conversation to come:
-Mummy, can I please please go to the new dancing class with Emma and Bluebell?
- Darling, you know we can't afford anything like this, daddy and I work and with the cost of childcare, we just can't pay for you to do any activities.
- but Mummy, Emma and Bluebell said their parents said ok
- I know my darling, but Emma's dad earn £100K and Bluebell's mum is on benefits. We earn £26K, so we can't afford it.
- That's not fair Mum.
- No my darling, life isn't fair at all but don't go bully Emma and Bluebell, that's not their fault they get to do things you can't do.

gillybean129

melly1980 wrote: »

what isnt fair is that the tax payer has been paying for your childs dance classes in the first place.

Here we go again, another sniping post

How I spend the money is up to ME! In fact it is for educational use and she's a grade 6 RAD ballerina has nothing to do with you! At least it#s not used on drink or drugs! How dare you!

melly1980

gillybean129 wrote: »

Here we go again, another sniping post

How I spend the money is up to ME! In fact it is for educational use and she's a grade 6 RAD ballerina has nothing to do with you! At least it#s not used on drink or drugs! How dare you!

as a taxpayer you will find I am entitled (sorry...entickled) to pass comment on where I believe tax money should be spent by the government.

melly1980

gillybean129 wrote: »

Here we go again, another sniping post
!

It is a message board where opinions get voiced, I havent at any point slated you in a personal way.
Just like you are allowed to express the opinion that its unfair that your £500 quid has gone, I am allowed to express the opinion that the £500 quid shouldnt have been paid out in the first place.

This country needs to get away from paying welfare to those that do not need it (and I include myself in that bracket). The tax system should provide for schools, hospitals, education etc etc but not for the wants of people. It should be a safety net and thats all. Anyone with even a smidgen of intelligence can see that a welfare state that sees people on welfare with I-Phones, holidays, multiple cars and so on are simply being over-provided for.if you can afford those things then you shouldnt be on welfare since it is not there to provide luxuries for people.

poppy10_2

Would have thought Bluebell's dad would be the one earning £100k and Emma would have the single mum

gillybean129

Dunroamin wrote: »

BANG!!!


(Sound of poster shooting herself in the foot!)

Another, helpful, supportive post.....

melly1980

gillybean129 wrote: »

Another, helpful, supportive post.....

the world isnt pink and fluffy

FBaby

poppy10 wrote: »

Would have thought Bluebell's dad would be the one earning £100k and Emma would have the single mum

oops, got that one wrong I certainly like Emma better than Bluebell though!!

SkyeKnight

melly1980 wrote: »

It is a message board where opinions get voiced, I havent at any point slated you in a personal way.
Just like you are allowed to express the opinion that its unfair that your £500 quid has gone, I am allowed to express the opinion that the £500 quid shouldnt have been paid out in the first place.

This country needs to get away from paying welfare to those that do not need it (and I include myself in that bracket). The tax system should provide for schools, hospitals, education etc etc but not for the wants of people. It should be a safety net and thats all. Anyone with even a smidgen of intelligence can see that a welfare state that sees people on welfare with I-Phones, holidays, multiple cars and so on are simply being over-provided for.if you can afford those things then you shouldnt be on welfare since it is not there to provide luxuries for people.

The problem is that work doesn't necessarily provide enough money for the basics - certainly 40 hours a week on minimum wage (around £11k after tax) isn't going to provide for a family of four.

So, simply to provide a safety net you are going to have to pay a non-working family more than a full-time wage. If you give the non-working family £20k to cover the basics then what do you give the working family? You say £9k to make them up to £20k as well since you aren't willing to pay for any luxuries. Where is the incentive to work?