Payrise takes OH's income over £50k

PippaGirl_2

You didn't write it as an opinion or as a possibility though but as a fact.

Face1992

PippaGirl wrote: »

You didn't write it as an opinion or as a possibility though but as a fact.

It's words on a screen, nuances can't really be seen can they?

BigAunty

Face1992 wrote: »

It will come out in years to come that their guardians were paid hundreds of pounds a week to look after them.
It will affect the child's sense of worth.

How is this much different from many households who reap child tax credits, child benefit and working tax credits, plus housing benefit and council tax discount for all of their children for at least 16 years each?

The parents only got this money which might comes to 10, 20, 30, 40k a year because they had dependents...

There are more than 200,000 households with children and two parents where only one parent works part-time and they claim WTC and all the other benefits that go with it. They perhaps do this because they want to be hands on parents, because there are limited employment opportunities or because, frankly, they don't have to - the public purse gives them a big state handout to give them a standard of living close to what two parents in full time employment would enjoy.

Face1992

BigAunty wrote: »

How is this much different from many households who reap child tax credits, child benefit and working tax credits, plus housing benefit and council tax discount for all of their children for at least 16 years each?

The parents only got this money which might comes to 10, 20, 30, 40k a year because they had dependents...

There are more than 200,000 households with children and two parents where only one parent works part-time and they claim WTC and all the other benefits that go with it. They perhaps do this because they want to be hands on parents, because there are limited employment opportunities or because, frankly, they don't have to - the public purse gives them a big state handout to give them a standard of living close to what two parents in full time employment would enjoy.

The difference is that the child isn't a biological one.


And it must be nice for one parent out of 2 to only have to work a 16 hour week but get the same money as 2 people out working full time :eek: The 24 hour a week rule will change that a bit though.:D

[Deleted User]

angelavdavis wrote: »

With respect, we are working class because we work for a living and have to do so to live.

My parents were born in slums in London - 4 families to one house, I went to lousy comprehensive and left school (with poor qualifications) at 16 to start paying into the household, having already been contributing financially into the household since I was 13. My first salary was £3.5k per annum after two years' study. I have paid for all my further education whilst working at the same time. My husband has an almost identical background (though his family were actually in domestic service). The fact my husband and I have progressed our incomes to these sort of salary levels is a reflection of how hard we have worked - not what schools our fathers attended or who our mates are. It sticks in my throat to be referred to as Middle Class because it is laughable!!

I didn't say we couldn't manage on a single £50k salary, I said my husband's payrise was likely to leave us worse off and was our only option for my husband to refuse the payrise.

a 50k income is more than double the national average,in my book your class isnt where you started but where you end up,and being so well paid makes you certainly in terms of income"middle class"

Charityworker

My heart bleeds for you. I have an annual income of about £14,000 with 2 children. I dont know how I cope either.

24skins

Not everyone who fosters children gets paid well or even at all, I unofficially fostered for 6 months and received £20 a week (paid as a purchase order) from Social Services to feed and clothe a 14 year old, despite having to take time off work and being unable to claim benefits for him. Unofficial fostering is widespread and many approved foster carers have unofficial fostered at some point before going through the process of being approved as an official and paid carer.

PippaGirl_2

And many Kinship carers go unpaid too, efforts have tried to change that but long way to go yet there.

Dunroamin

PippaGirl wrote: »

I am not doubting what you say is true, that you were not offered your fostering allowance as an adoption allowance, your LA obviously has different criteria, but what a shame. And their stance isn't the national norm, I'm unsure of what is norm nationally as I only know what is norm to my two LA's here, it would be interesting to know.

I have posted the link to the national rules which state very clearly (as is the case with your friends) that nobody should get more than the fostering allowance as an adoption allowance. What I was taking issue with was your statement that no adoptive parent was allowed to be worst off after adopting as this obviously isn't the case.

Dunroamin

PippaGirl wrote: »

Dunroamin, it has occured to me that the difference between my friends and you may be that it wasn't your foster children who you were planning to adopt? If so, yes even my two LA's would not offer an adoption allowance. They only do that here to facilitate and maintain a good happy placement where the children are thriving into a permanent one.

Sorry, wrong again.