We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Losing Child benefit
Comments
-
If the OP is in their 40s like me they would have benefited from free university and grants so no fees/loans to repay.
Which was why I said he probably hadn't had one.
Also university isn't just for high earners, I know plenty of low earners who are repaying student loans.
That's contradictory; low earners don't repay student loans.0 -
-
Murgatroyd21 wrote: »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.
because it is right that someone working only 16 hours should have a comfortable life? I don't. I think someone who hasn't managed to gain more than 16 hours shouldn't be having kids and should just have enough to make ends meet so they can actually have an incentive to do more and contribute themselves for those who trully cannot work.
What you say makes little sense. Most people earning NMW will be paid by the hours. If they work extra, they get paid extra. Where i work, once your salary reaches approx £40K, there is a clause to say that although our contract is for 37.5 hours, we are expected to work extra (at no additional pay) as required for the job. With all the cuts that have taken place, believe me, this is happening every single week.
Moving closer to work... maybe they can't afford to live where they work, I certainly couldn't. Also, my office has moved 3 times on 3 years and is likely to change again next year... I can see how cost effective that would be to sale and buy again every time, and that's not talking about disturbing my children.
I think you are totally deluded. I see the difference every day between my friends who only work part-time in a low paid job and myself. They have so much more energy than I, and so much free time. It isn't surprising is it, they have 20 hours or plus to do what I have only evenings and the week-ends to do. Of course it is my choice, but that's a choice I made when I decided to study, never interrupt my career (only took a total of 12 months maternity leave between my two children), applying for new jobs to go up the ladder because it was put in my head from my family to my teachers that the harder I worked, the more chance I got to get a good job and to be much better financially off than those who didn't. Now I compare with those who rely on tax credits and I do wonder. I wouldn't change things because I am proud to be putting a lot more in the pot than I am getting out, but sometimes, too much just feels too much...0 -
...Also university isn't just for high earners, I know plenty of low earners who are repaying student loans.
The student loan point isn't so much of an issue at the moment because as people have said, the majority of those earning £60K currently will have had no or low tuition fees to pay.
But in the future, those who take out student loans are probably going to have to have to make repayments over the entire 30 years until they are written off - so projecting today's situation into the future, those earning an equivalent salary to the £60K threshold now will have probably also made loan payments from their gross salary. So even though it isn't a big issue now, it will affect parents at that salary level in the next generation.0 -
I never said comfortable, that's solely your wording. Define their "comfortable" life, and is it purely a single parent income they depend on, living in the same place as you?because it is right that someone working only 16 hours should have a comfortable life? I don't. I think someone who hasn't managed to gain more than 16 hours shouldn't be having kids0 -
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!
True: and if he is making pension contributions, he will pay even less tax.RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.0 -
That's contradictory; low earners don't repay student loans.
I think she meant that he wouldn't have had a student loan if OP is in his 40s, as university education use to be free; before Blair decided to make the English and Welsh students' pay and used his Scottish MPs to get that vote through. Then he gave the employment in the Student Loans comany to........Scotland (Glasgow).RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.0 -
Murgatroyd21 wrote: »the government has set a level that families shouldn't be below to maintain a minimum standard, .
I'm yet to be convinced that the money actually gets to the children. Vouchers with stipulations, would be a much safer way. That, or get the schools to hold all the childs welfare money to ensure this is just spent on the child.RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.0 -
When we earn a salary it's meant to go towards maintaining our family, meeting the rent/mortgage, bills etc, but people still run up debts by non-payment. I suppose we could all simply have a card with a spending allowance with amounts only able to be spent at food stores, clothes stores etc, but only after we've had all other bills deducted as directed by the government. Much safer that way, and a more compliant society.MissMoneypenny wrote: »I'm yet to be convinced that the money actually gets to the children. Vouchers with stipulations, would be a much safer way. That, or get the schools to hold all the childs welfare money to ensure this is just spent on the child.
Sheesh, even religion gives more freedom.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards