Losing Child benefit

tyllwyd

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

On 60k it won't take long to pay back student loans. With 6 children, I'm guessing the OP isn't that young and will already have paid off their loan?

I'm thinking more about the future under the new system - someone in the OP's situation may have been likely to have been working for, say, 20 years and won't have started work on a salary anywhere near £60K. Since the payments start so low and with interest applied, it is very likely that in the future most graduates will be paying back their student loans for the full 30 years so if the current scheme continues (with thresholds adjusted as time goes on of course), someone in the OPs situation with a good salary but not sky-high may very well have a student loan repayment to make.

It is pretty obvious that if this scheme continues what is already a huge marginal rate of tax would be even worse. And it would create an even bigger gap between families with two earners on lower salaries and one earner on a high salary, all with student loans - if the threshold for student loans was £21K, two earners on £30K each would be paying repayments on £18K total, but one earner on £60K would pay repayments on £39K total.

And that's on top of the higher tax bill for the £60K earner compared to the two £30K earners, and the loss of child benefit.

I wonder if in the future we'll see more part-time working for men as parents share the childcare because they won't be able to afford for one parent to give up their career to run the home and allow the other parent to concentrate on their own career.

Murgatroyd21

Blue22 wrote: »

This is only so low because you are calculating on 16 hours at minimum wage, from April a couple need to be working 24 hours. Please redo the calculation for 24 hours.

Thankyou

These were the figures quoted to me to use. Don't you like them?

Murgatroyd21

melly1980 wrote: »

nice fudging of the figures to get below the 24hr cut off point.

I will adjust it for you, the minimum wage person despite doing 24 hours compared to the others doing 37hrs will come away with just short of 23K Nett

So under like for like conditions (3 kids etc)

7.5K turns into 23K
50K turns into 31K

Im sure that those 50K earners really feel rewarded at all the extra hours (extra on top of the 37) and the responsibility of a 50K job and (as is often the case) the extra studying and so on.

Haven't fudged the figures, and in fact as I said, haven't included CB someone on £60k will continue to get. I must note you appear to be able to round up the income for someone on a low income by £1000 and reducing the higher income by £7000 incorrectly, so a bit cheeky to accuse anyone else of fudging figures.

Murgatroyd21

his_wife wrote: »

my husband earns £60.000 on paper, yet in reality its nowhere near, he pays 20,000 a year or there abouts in tax, he also pays 8000 a year in ni contributions, then of course, there is travelling back and forth, he works other end of country, oh he also pays at the minute just short of 9,500 year in csa payments. So now tell me thats a lot of money to live on, we also have four other children to support (mine not his). So when i loose my child benefit next year, it will be my children going without.

We obviously, receive no other benefits, so we have to pay, dental, nhs prescriptions, optician fees etc. Beleive me, the lower earners, probably earn more than us, and are more better off, as they will still qualify for tax credits, etc.

Your figures don't make sense. Ask to see your partners payslip. As pointed out in a previous post the maximum tax & NI is about £18.5k. You might want to check the travelling to the other end of the country isn't for another family! Do you think only people on higher incomes have second families?

Murgatroyd21

FBaby wrote: »

Really....what you are saying is that the guy who only works 16 hours has a proportionate net income similar if not higher than the one who earns £50K if you consider that the latter works full-time...and you think this is right??????? The guy who earns £50K must have gone to Uni, repaid loans, works longer hours than contracted for and is much likely to have to travel further away to get to his job and see much less of his kids. As for the house going to the kids, yep right, more like it will all go to pay for nursing care anyway...

It's figures like this that are horrifying.

Ah, proportionate! So, you are unhappy that the government has set a level that families shouldn't be below to maintain a minimum standard, and your employer doesn't pay you enough to be, in your opinion, suitably better off. Isn't your argument with your employer?

You think only someone on a salary of £50k+ has gone to uni? You're making assumptions about hours etc, while ignoring a great many people on low incomes have to put in higher hours than they get paid for, it isn't unique to higher salary staff . Finance, services (particularly if on a meter) and similar cost more for those on lower incomes, but don't let realities get in the way of a good argument. Oh, and the £50k earner still has the choice of moving closer to work. Not something you get so readily with low incomes.

As for the cost of a nursing home, I think enough people are well aware of ways of arranging their financial affairs to meet that situation, such as trusts etc.

Dunroamin

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

On 60k it won't take long to pay back student loans. With 6 children, I'm guessing the OP isn't that young and will already have paid off their loan?

More likely not to have had one in the first place.

Dunroamin

his_wife wrote: »

my husband earns £60.000 on paper, yet in reality its nowhere near, he pays 20,000 a year or there abouts in tax, he also pays 8000 a year in ni contributions, then of course, there is travelling back and forth, he works other end of country, oh he also pays at the minute just short of 9,500 year in csa payments. So now tell me thats a lot of money to live on, we also have four other children to support (mine not his). So when i loose my child benefit next year, it will be my children going without.

We obviously, receive no other benefits, so we have to pay, dental, nhs prescriptions, optician fees etc. Beleive me, the lower earners, probably earn more than us, and are more better off, as they will still qualify for tax credits, etc.

Nothing like!

His tax bill should be around £11/12K.

StevieJ

zagfles wrote: »

Indeed - there's far too much judgemental rubbish on this board. We should be discussing entitlement and rules, not sitting in moral judgement on anyone asking about entitlement and rules.

I agree, I think that the budget deficit would be much smaller if people just claimed for what they were entitled to and paid taxes on all relevant income streams. The OP has a duty to legally maximise his net income for his family, if that includes paying into a pension so be it.

anguk

his_wife wrote: »

my husband earns £60.000 on paper, yet in reality its nowhere near, he pays 20,000 a year or there abouts in tax, he also pays 8000 a year in ni contributions

That doesn't sound right at all. :huh: He should be paying about £18-19k altogether for tax and NI, you're quoting £10k more! Either your husband's tax and NI are wrong in which case he needs to speak to his employers, you're mistaken or your husband is actually getting about £10k more a year than he's telling you.

Dunroamin wrote: »

More likely not to have had one in the first place.

If the OP is in their 40s like me they would have benefited from free university and grants so no fees/loans to repay.

Also university isn't just for high earners, I know plenty of low earners who are repaying student loans.

his_wife

have checked his wage slip, no he isnt lying to me, no he isnt travelling to see another family. He is travelling to work.

He has apparently paid short in tax, when he left a previous employment, he got made redundant, so they are taking that off this years, so that is the extra tax he is paying. I would of mentioned that last night, but, i forgot all about that, till i asked him today.

Why would i think only people on higher income have second families??