New baby for 40% tax payer: Any support?

nannytone_2

you are using an extreme example, and for every case like the one you describe, there are probably thousands of others where the money is needed and used for its intended purpose.

another person may have no other assets/income other than the £600 a month. suddenly it doesnt seem like such a massive amount anymore.

shirlgirl2004

nannytone wrote: »

you are using an extreme example, and for every case like the one you describe, there are probably thousands of others where the money is needed and used for its intended purpose.

another person may have no other assets/income other than the £600 a month. suddenly it doesnt seem like such a massive amount anymore.

Actually even without the assets it is a large amount. Thus person doesn't pay for food, rent, council tax, utilities, TV licence etc etc. In fact the money is used for clothes, toiletries, haircuts and chiropody. That leaves a huge surplus.

nannytone_2

and its an uncommon situation.
is all rgwue pwesonal care provided too?
if it is then they shouldnt be receiving any DLA care .

shirlgirl2004

Yes care is received so DLA care isn't paid. Does it being uncommon make it right?

nannytone_2

well i dont see anything wrong with the ESA veing paid, as the claimant contributed towards it and is as entitled as anyone else regardless of assets.this is the wholle point of conts based benefit isnt it? that people get them because they have paid in and not because they have no other form of income. otherwide there would be no conts based benefitsd needed at all
the DLA is a different thing and perhaps cases like this need looking at.
you could also say that wealthy pensioners shouldnt receive the state pension.
but if they have worked and paid contributions towards it, then it is their entitlement.
this govenment is very fond of moving goalposts so presumably even contributions based benefits will be looked at in the near future

shirlgirl2004

They looked at taking DLA away from people in homes and there was uproar so I believe they've backed down. I don't agree with the ESA either because families are struggling under the burden of taxation. Be under no illusion that NI contributions cover only a fraction of what we all seem to think they should be covering. People are being taxed heavily so he (and people like him) can get more than £100 a week because he paid 2 years of NI.

neverdespairgirl

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

What benefit is that? One that even millionaires can claim? Surely there's something wrong with the system, if people who are well off can claim a handout? Just curious that's all!

There are lots of benefits which are available to millionaires if they meet the other qualifiers, such as winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions, free / cheaper travel (those are all for pension age plus), and also DLA.

neverdespairgirl

nannytone wrote: »

disability living allowance and attendance allowance.
they are paid to help meet the additional costs of disability/long term illness.
it does seem wrong that millionaires can claim it, but what is the alternative?
if they are means tested, someone just above the threshold would be denied and it may only be the disability benefit they receive that enables them to continue working

When the Welfare State was established just after the Second World War, it was a founding concept that those who didn't work through disability were not entitled to more in payments than those looking for work.

There was a big change in this in the late 70s and 80s, I think.

GlasweJen

I claim DLA and work full time. I couldn't not work because I would be driven demented. Without DLA I couldn't afford to work because my DLA passports me onto access to work support. I couldn't get the package I have without my DLA award.

If I won £50k in premium bonds tomorrow I would still claim DLA because I need that passport benefit to access my work place and some other subsidised services.

It does annoy me that child benefits are so generous, and that they are paid for an indefinite amount of children. Stop it at 2 and if a large family is for religious reasons then let the churches pay for the extra kids. I don't believe that throwing money at parents helps "child poverty" in the slightest.

FBaby

It's amazing what the culture of benefit is taking society too. The issue here is not that people like OP expecting (enough to be questioning) to be entitled to something, it is the fact that it has become so widespread that you can have children after children and get better off as a result, that people who are earning well are starting to question whether in that case, they should be entitled to something too.

The problem is the disparity between those families who work hard, most likely having made many sacrifices to be in that position, paying most into the system, being told that because of the result, they are not entitled to anything and certainly should expect to be. That's fair enough. But on the other hand, you have those who have never cared to earn enough money to support themselves, who strongly believe that it is their entitlement to have the number of children they wish regardless of whether they can support them because and it is right that those who have to make choices in their lives because of the income they generate should support their choice to have that number of children.

The problem is back to the debates we've had over and over here, that benefits are not cap to number of children. When you read threads where people on low income who have already 4 children from previous relationships who they can't even support, think it is their right to have 2 or 3 more and expect the tax payers to support them, rehouse them and the rest, it gets people like OP thinking 'and what about me' understandably!.