Grandmother losing EVERYTHING!

Ma77hew

Totally agree 2 people paying over £30k a year tax and receiving less than £1k a year in child benefit is much worse than £35k a year funding a care home for someone who may never have contributed any tax.

duchy

Marker wrote: »

Most normal people that work and have children work hard so their children have something to inherit and generally to make their lives easier. If the initial intention of their lifes choices are taken away in later life, then it was all for nothing.

Home ownership for "normal people" (whatever that means) is a fairly new thing. The parents and grandparents of today's elderly working and lower middle class didn't own their property- they rented.

For sure plenty of people bought thinking it would be nice to be able to give their children an inheritance but if that was the only reason they bought it was a pretty uninformed and short sighted decision. Buying their home gave them portability of property-knowing if they wanted to move home they could take their investment with them and choose the location and type of property-and most benefited from profit as house prices rose -and could choose to release capital by downsizing later when their children left home. All benefits not available to them had they chosen to rent. Most buyer have benefitted (even more so those who bought on right to buy at a discount) and paid less over their lifetime in mortgage payments than they would have paid in rent.

Just because there has been a shift in attitude in the last thirty years from benefits being a short term measure to a cradle to grave lifestyle option -doesn't mean expecting those who can pay to pay is unreasonable (by the same count Tax Credits currently pander to this new attitude and shouldn't be paid out to those who genuinely don't need them but claim because it's there).

Thirty years ago you wouldn't ask a recently unemployed person if they were looking for a job -it would be an automatic assumption that they were actively job seeking as that was the social norm and "the dole" wasn't a lifestyle choice but a short term "necessary evil" and something no-one wanted to claim for a moment longer than possible.

We've turned from a nation of triers to a nation of feeling needy and expecting the government to provide. You only have to look at posts on here "We've just had a baby and realized we can't afford the same lifestyle - can we get any benefits even though one of us is working and the other would prefer to stay home". Whatever happened to working out if you could afford a child first....or saving for it ..or even thinking about finances before the baby arrives ? We've raised our young people to think the world owes them an income (and apparently an inheritance) without any personal responsibility. It worked for a while but now we as a nation simply can't afford all these passengers anymore - and reform is going to hurt.

jimjames

Steve_xx wrote: »

It's not that messy. What you describe is essentially healthcare matters and we all pay for that in our NI contributions.


What I'm describing is the act of giving couples earning up to 50k each, money for their kids. These people are not in need of state handouts and in my view they ought to be curtailed at a lot less of a level than at 100k per pair. I feel that given the current financial climate that curtailment will be on its way. It's quite bizarre that state cash is handed out on this as it is today.

Slightly at a tangent but is it fair that someone on £60k loses their entire child benefit yet a couple earning £60k split equally lose nothing yet also benefit from 2 x full personal allowances and 20% tax as well.

margaretclare

When Churchill passed the Family Allowance Act he created the Welfare State, with the aim of providing the start of a "cradle to grave" system to help those that are unable to help themselves. This was and is funded through taxation and National Insurance. Those that can pay, do, whilst those those that can't don't.

Historical correction: the post-war Labour Government implemented the Beveridge Report 1942 which set out the framework for what became known as the Welfare State. IIRC it was a Labour minister, Aneurin Bevan, who coined the phrase 'cradle to grave'. Churchill did not regain power until the 1951 general election.

BTW for those who look forward to 'Red Ed getting in' or 'the Tories getting in', wait until May this year. I'm in touch with people who read, write and discuss a lot about current politics and many are saying that there will not be a majority of any party come Friday after the votes have been cast.

About grandparents living in care homes, it hasn't happened to DH and me yet. He's 80, I'm almost. To follow a popular phrase, we worked hard all our lives. We're not rich but a long way from being poor. Still taxpayers, but I make sure my favourite charities get GiftAid from my tax contributions. No complaints. We don't look at other people, as others have done here with the Couple 1 and Couple 2 scenarios, because everyone is different.

Steve_xx

jimjames wrote: »

Slightly at a tangent but is it fair that someone on £60k loses their entire child benefit yet a couple earning £60k split equally lose nothing yet also benefit from 2 x full personal allowances and 20% tax as well.

In my opinion both instances that you present ought to be without child benefit. A household, be it one or two adults, with a total of 60k income should not be entitled to have its kids gifted by the state. The bar for relieving people of child benefit should, and proabably will, be set a lot lower in the future.

Gadfium

margaretclare wrote: »

Historical correction: the post-war Labour Government implemented the Beveridge Report 1942 which set out the framework for what became known as the Welfare State. IIRC it was a Labour minister, Aneurin Bevan, who coined the phrase 'cradle to grave'. Churchill did not regain power until the 1951 general election.

The Liberals and Conservatives adopted Beveridges findings earlier than Labour. Churchill referred to "cradle to grave" social insurance in a radio broadcast in March 1943. In April 1943 he appointed a committee to consider implementation of the Beveridge Report. This committee resulted in White Papers on social security, the NHS, on Housing in 1944 and the Family Allowance Act in 1945.

dealer_wins

If I ever become senile/incapable I hope my daughter spends my dosh on a nice care home for me rather than worry about her possible inheritance.

And god forbid my mother needs care the last thing on my mind will be my possible inheritance or lack of same.

le_loup

I've seen care homes and I sure am glad that I have sufficient put by to get me in a good one and the kids can go hang ... and I'm certain that that's what they would say themselves!


Incidentally, I have sufficient put by due to good luck just as much as working moderately hardish.

Notfarfromtheborder

Steve_xx wrote: »

In my opinion both instances that you present ought to be without child benefit. A household, be it one or two adults, with a total of 60k income should not be entitled to have its kids gifted by the state. The bar for relieving people of child benefit should, and proabably will, be set a lot lower in the future.

I see means testing of child benefit as just another tax on the marginally successful. I lost it for two years but have regained it due due to salary sacrifice.


Certain 'friends' told me 'you don't need it' whilst at the pub, spending their benefits & credits behind the bar.


They will be the ones that get everything paid for by the state and no doubt in 20 years or so will tell me I don't need the state pension I thought I was going to get but now won't because a future government decides to means test this also.

Steve_xx

Notfarfromtheborder wrote: »

I see means testing of child benefit as just another tax on the marginally successful. I lost it for two years but have regained it due due to salary sacrifice.


Certain 'friends' told me 'you don't need it' whilst at the pub, spending their benefits & credits behind the bar.


They will be the ones that get everything paid for by the state and no doubt in 20 years or so will tell me I don't need the state pension I thought I was going to get but now won't because a future government decides to means test this also.

It isn't a tax on the marginally successful because they haven't earned it in the first place to have it taken away. It essentially is a gift for having kids, crucially, whether you need it or not.

The state pension is contributory, ie you pay for it in your NI contributions as you go along. Therefore the two aren't quite equitable.