New baby for 40% tax payer: Any support?

Georgiegirl256

FBaby wrote: »

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 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!.

You have hit the nail right on the head there with those two paragraphs!

shirlgirl2004

GlasweJen wrote: »

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.

So what needs to be done is that access to work support should be through a DLA type of assessment without the requirement to claim DLA. If DLA became means tested then that would need to be done.

I totally agree on capping benefits to a couple of children and as someone who has 4 it isn't because I'm under that golden number.

nannytone_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

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.

just because that was the intention back then, doesnt mean it is right.
we used to have slaves and burn witches too. just because we did it, sdoesnt make it right.

s disnled person has higher costs in irder to live in the same way as a non disabled person ( i know that is a generalisation, but in most cases is true)
many need additiona water/heating because of their conditions.
transport costs can also be much higher as someone in a wheelchair/ mobility problems cant always access public transport and so has to pay for a taxi to go shopping.
i dont have these issues, but have to meet the costs ofr whoever accompanies me.

there are aids and adaptations needed that can be very costly.

at one time i had to change all my light bulbs, because i could no longer see by the light of conventional bulbs.( before the advent of the even dimmer energy saving bulbs) these cost £7 per bulb, so hudely more expensive than normal ones

clemmatis

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

So what needs to be done is that access to work support should be through a DLA type of assessment without the requirement to claim DLA. If DLA became means tested then that would need to be done.

When Access to Work helped me, I received no benefits, and they didn't suggest I applied for any. They interviewed me, at length, then asked for a GP's letter, then sent me for specialist assessment at a regional centre (assessment by a physio/OT, discussion with a computer expert). Their help wasn't means tested.

I'm a little surprised they've changed the policy -- though I know the Access to Work scheme has changed a couple of times since then.

counting_down_the_days...

OP sorry I haven't read through all of the comments as it appears a big chunk is more a debate than actually helping with your question.

Unfortunately, I doubt you'll be entitled to anything other than your child benefit which is £20.20 (I think) a week + your wife's SMP.

You have to budget and you have to start before you even start thinking about TTC! (trying to conceive)

What I would suggest is looking at ways to have a MS baby. Breast feeding is free, save £10 a week on formula - not easy for everyone, but there is support out there if your wife is keen to have a go.

Thought about real nappies? Get over the yuk thought - once the baby's here, you'll be used to poo & sick, a washable nappy really isn't that bad. Although you have the initial outlay, that's another £10 a week saving. You can also use your reusable nappies for baby no. 2, 3, 4 etc

Babies don't cost a lot of money, but these are my two biggest savers. Once they get older they start to cost, but by them your accustomed to it!

I put my child benefit aside and use it for clothes and shoes, then when I think £43 for a pair of shoes??? I remember, that's what the money is for.

I don't like comparing salaries as you spend what you earn, however, we do earn less with both working full time & £800+ a month for nursery. But I do notice your mortgage is almost paid off, that'll make a huge difference and you could always stop overpaying for a few years if you had to.

Good luck with the new baby

leveller2911

nannytone wrote: »

just because that was the intention back then, doesnt mean it is right.
we used to have slaves and burn witches too. just because we did it, sdoesnt make it right.



I disagree with you, a benefits system should only be a safety net for everyone.We should not have a system where people are actively encouraged not to work or work as few hours as possible to qualify for increased state handouts.

Then we have that old chestnut of "I've paid tax and NI for 30 years so I paid my way" , when in truth the amount of direct taxation they paid wouldn't actually pay for the schooling of their children or the use of the NHS they have already had let alone any tax credits,housing benefit,council tax benefit,DLA, etc etc etc .

As you keep posting personal experiences I may as well. Our household income is around £31k gross (thats before tax) , have 2 children (yes stopped at 2 because we can't afford any more) and the fact is we probably get more out than we pay in.
By this I mean the only benefits we receive are child benefit but the services we use each year (schools,health service etc) would cost more than the £6,000 income tax and NI stamps we pay in.

Most people are deluded if they think they "pay for what benefits they receive ".Was chatting to my neighbour the other day who was whinging about work.He works 20 hrs a week (£7-50 hr) through choice, has 5 children and still thinks he's entitled to more because "he pays in"...;)

In an ideal world none of us would have to work ,we all receive a free house,food,tv,s, mobile phones etc but life isn't like that.

Personally I would like to see benefits cut even more especially housing benefit,WTC, CTC and things like the Motorbility scheme.My sister has a disabled child, she can have a new car on the motorbility scheme every 3 years and just has to put petrol in it and yet her daughter has been waiting for a new wheelchair for 10 months and they have now stopped her physiotherapy because they are "reviewing" the department.

I'm kinda getting to like this posting about me.......;)

To the OP claim what you can, having a moral compass counts for diddly squat in UK now.

nannytone_2

so people that were born severly disabled and have little/no capacity to ever work or improve their own circumstances should live at an existance level?
as long as they can have enough food to stay alive and shelter that is sufficient?
unemployed people always have the hope that their situation can be changed through their own efforts, but those for whom this isnt a possibility can just be kept alive and thats all they merit?
actually putting people down would be kinder than this scenario.
to be left languishing with
barely ebough to susraib life is beyond cruelty.

the disabilty vehicke isnr for your sister... it is for her child who as they qualify for high rate mobility DLA.
this means they are unable/virtually unable to walk.

so you would be happy to condemn your own neice/nephew to a life indoors?
just as long as they can be fed enough to keep them alive?
you lack of compassion to a member of your own damily is astonishing. no wonder you have no regard for anyone elses quality of life!

365days

I think this is the issue now. People are so hacked off with seeing others getting huge amounts of benefits they deciede for themselves to step up an claim some for themselves.

I have just started claiming DLA for my son. I could of claimed about 7 years ago but didn't actually know it was even possible!!!

It was only working as a support worker and seeing the amounts some 'benefit families' were raking in each week I found out about it.

Do I feel guilty? No.

I house myself, work and have stopped at just the one child.

I never thought I would have this 'entitlement' mentality but I have!!

I've seen people live in houses and areas I nor my peers could never afford on wages - all paid for. That's what riles people. And that's why people who 'earn' money look to see what scrapings may be left in the bowl.

leveller2911

nannytone wrote: »

so people that were born severly disabled and have little/no capacity to ever

work or improve their own circumstances should live at an existance level?

I never said that, please post a quote where I said that Nanny so put up or shut up.


as long as they can have enough food to stay alive and shelter that is sufficient?

Yes that should be enough food, warmth,shelter.Anything more they get themselves an education and work for it. May sound harsh Nanny but for the last 20 yrs or more the benefits system has all been done with a "carrott" of incentives.This clearly has'nt worked and all it has done has nurtured a Society of entitlement so I propose we should used a little more "stick".

You get the bare essentials of food (via food stamps) warmth and shelter. May sound harsh but we have suffered far too much from "the Nanny state" (no pun intended).You,me and the rest of the UK have no idea whatsoever about "poverty".

unemployed people always have the hope that their situation can be changed

through their own efforts, but those for whom this isnt a possibility can just
be kept alive and thats all they merit?

See above

actually putting people down would be kinder than this scenario.

to be left languishing with

barely ebough to susraib life is beyond cruelty.

No need to even comment on this.........;)

the disabilty vehicke isnr for your sister... it is for her child who as
they qualify for high rate mobility DLA.



this means they are unable/virtually unable to walk.

Totally missed my point.There is a finite amount of money which could and should be better spent. A properly fitted wheelchair is more important than a new car every 3 years.For instance a badly fitting wheelchair may well cost the NHS (taxpayer) £thousand in future treatment from problems caused now.Her body is changing,she is growing up and the problems caused by a poorly fitting wheelchair far outweighs the benefit from a new car every 3 years. I am not against Motorbility but I am against the waste.There are thousands of people receiving a new car every 3 yrs who conditions do not change and so do not need a new car. If they need a car then they should have a car but they should keep the car for at least 6 yrs. For one thing many car manufacturers will have a 5-7 yr warranty.Those who's condition does change should of coarse receive a car at more regular intervals.There is a sizeable minority who don't warrant a Motorbility car.I personally know of 2 people, it has nothing to do with jealousy either btw.

so you would be happy to condemn your own neice/nephew to a life indoors?

Comment doesn't deserve a response.

you lack of compassion to a member of your own damily is astonishing. no
wonder you have no regard for anyone elses quality of life!

Since you asked about my personal compassion and we have got personal I have plenty of compassion and anyone who knows me personally would agree. I support all of my family,contribute to small local Charities each month and have a very clear conscience thanks Nanny........

Instead of spending your time on here ,educate yourself online how economics work, Socialist ideology etc and how its full of holes. Great in theory but has never worked , then come back and have a proper debate.

StormyWeather_2

leveller2911 wrote: »

Personally I would like to see benefits cut even more especially housing benefit,WTC, CTC and things like the Motorbility scheme.My sister has a disabled child, she can have a new car on the motorbility scheme every 3 years and just has to put petrol in it and yet her daughter has been waiting for a new wheelchair for 10 months and they have now stopped her physiotherapy because they are "reviewing" the department.

I didn't think the cars were free on motorbility. Don't they have to pay a monthly amount?