MSE News: Summer Budget 2015: Millions to face benefit cuts

StixUK

beecher2 wrote: »

Your boss might not physically work harder, but he has the responsibility to make sure your workplace is running efficiently - this is what I don't think you get.

I assure you that I do get it. My point is physical or mentally, the strenuous nature of work is subjective.


For one person, managing a team maybe the easiest thing in the world, for another it may never work.


Society puts an objective aspect on this by applying a social contract in place whereby some jobs are regarded more highly or in more demand and therefore are considered working harder.


I was a self-employed debt collector travelling on all weathers, managing my own books, being threatened with violence and having personal attacks made upon my character.


Many people consider this hard and unbearable work, my boss fully admits that it is too hard for him to do but came naturally to me. At this point when my boss was a Territory Manager, I would say that I was working a damn sight harder than him, but hey it's all water under the bridge.


I don't like to view it like this because he wouldn't do the job and that's a role I could fulfil so in a simplistic world, he worked hard at what he did and I worked hard at what I did, the chain was oiled and life was great.

StixUK

beecher2 wrote: »

I would personally never describe anyone as working any harder than anyone else. I hate the phrase 'hard working families' - I find it so insulting. The hardest I ever worked was when I worked as a cleaner - back breaking, exhausting work for very little pay. But pay isn't an indication of energy expended - it is, as you say, down to the value placed on a job. I am paid more as a qualified chartered librarian than I was as a cleaner because of my skillset and experience.

Your boss might not physically work harder, but he has the responsibility to make sure your workplace is running efficiently - this is what I don't think you get.

The more I think about it, the more I think this thread is a wind up to be honest.

missbiggles1 wrote: »

A single childless person earning £15K would just get their salary, nothing else.

But they would be only supporting themselves and there would be other non-financial benefits that apply to a childless single person, but that is a non-budget question.

StixUK

bloolagoon wrote: »

It's far higher than that. It's distorted by the free car and petrol. If you simply look at the £1500 then using £1 CT and £20 PW HB they get (obviously this is usually a LOT higher but I'm taking that figure which gives a LHA of around £115 a week for a 3 bed.

On a £15000 salary with 4 children people get £400 a week in benefits. £92.12 WTC. £224.52 CTC. £20 HB £61.80 CB plus £1 CTB.

£400 is £20,800 per year add take home from a £15k job is £13,287. So take home income of £34k. You need to earn £46,000 PA to take home that net.

Obviously as I said for many that figure is a lot larger but the low housing costs £115 keep it low.

My current situation is exactly as follows:


Housing Benefit = £30.75 per week
Council Tax Support = £0
Child Benefit = £61.80 per week
Child Tax Credit = £213 per week (£11,114 /52)
Working Tax Credit = £3 per week (£158/52)


GROSS Wage = £336 per week (£17,500 APPROX)
Net Wage = £291 per week


So my GROSS = £644 per week (£33,488 per annum)
My NET is = £599 per week (£31,148 per annum)


AFTER APRIL 2016 CHANGES TO TAX CREDITS:


I will lose APPROX £75 per month or £17 per week in CTC.


NEW GROSS = £627 per week (£32,604 per annum)
NEW NET = £582 per week (£30,264 per annum)


It sounds a lot but this is to share between 6 people and I suppose not many people would want to live on this for 6 people as it doesn't lead for a luxurious lifestyle.


I think that we live a good lifestyle with the money we receive but this money wouldn't be here unless we had the children and I suppose this is where most people will argue against the system. We could have children and afford it due to tax credits, not so much child benefit because everybody used to receive that so wasn't really considered an exclusive benefit for people that had children.


I am not whinging about the benefit being withdrawn and I don't recollect doing so, I consider myself to be comfortable and I people will be angry about that, why should you be comfortable whilst claiming in work benefits.


I don't receive these benefits for me or my wife though, there are benefits as a household that come from this but they are only derived from the fact that we have children and they are paid because we have children. Without children these wouldn't be paid.


This leads me to say that at the time that I had my children and anyone having children from the introduction of the tax credits system were given more to live off instantly so this says to me that government policy was set out to reduce the strain of people having children in low income families, to allow them a better lifestyle and I think that the system achieved that.


I would be interested to think what people think we should live off? Work it out for yourselves, disregard the fact that you feel I shouldn't have had 4 children, I can't change that now.


But what do you think is an acceptable income figure for a family of 6 in modern society?


I am genuinely interested for some well thought through answers, not the flippant remarks like "woah, wish I had that much" or "some people have got it too easy". Lets flip this conversation over the last few posts into a constructive, I have been fully transparent and willing to be judged on that as I have nothing to hide. I don't make the figures that I get paid, the government does that.


Also as a side note, you are correct, if the tax credits system wasn't in place we would more than likely would have not had 4 children. When 'pricing' up having extra children we could afford it due to receiving extra income from tax credits and child benefit and we also pledged to reuse as many of the previous childrens toys and clothes etc at the same time and we saved thousands by doing this, so we were thrifty as well when required.


I think it is too crude to say that we shouldn't have relied on the tax credits system for our income. How many couples completely ignored Child Benefit in their calculations when having a first or extra child and the resultant NI contributions towards State Pension? Are you really saying to me that no-one looked and factored that into their budget when deciding if they can afford the extra expense, I think not.


Also, how many people of an older age were looking forward to retiring at 60 or which many women were and all of a sudden that was changed to 65 to mirror equality with men and women. Subsequently you never know when and what it will be raised to. This change affected a mass of people who had planned for a certain retirement age and claiming their state pension but now have to possibly work for an extra 5 years. How crippling for those people to work all your life and be told you have to work 5 years more. If they were sensible people they would have planned to retire at 60 because they have been told for donkeys years that is when they will retire. Whoops, they should have planned that the government would change the goalposts.


Have you not noticed that the huge problem here is that the government has successfully got the likes of me and you disagreeing over small sums of money. A few thousand between me and you is nothing compared the billions flying around in the economy. I am no different from the other 4.5m households getting some form of tax credits out of the 26.4m households in the UK. That means that 17% of the UK claims tax credits, not a small minority by all accounts.


I suggest you take a look at this and on page 16 you will see what is considered the Minimum Income Standard for A couple with 2 children, which suggests it is £577 per week (if you ignore the childcare element) as my wife stays at home.


I currently receive £599 with 2 adults and 4 children. If you factor in the childcare costs for 4 children and possible sick days, holidays and the very fact that my wife would be unlikely to find a job paying more than minimum wage, it just isn't worth it.


So according the the Joseph Rowntree Foundation we do not live a Minimum Income Lifestyle for an acceptable standard of living as decided by real members of the public.


You should not be focusing on me claiming my tax credits and benefits as I am not well off. The income figure looks high yes. But if you were earning £45,386 with 4 children, you would also get some form of tax credits, like I do. The table below shows the limits for a family without any childcare responsibilities.


1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 4 Children 5 Children
£25,703 £32,264 £38,825 £45,386 £51,946


I suppose what I am trying to get at is if you are earning £34,000 with no childcare costs and have 2 children and you thought about having a 3rd. It would be reasonable to assume that you would include tax credits and child benefit as well as cutting back in your decision making. In this scenario you would qualify for an extra amount in tax credits and child benefit.


You wouldn't sit there and not take these into account when working out your budget and affordability, would you?


You might find these figures disturbing as this is what your government stated that people were allowed to earn based on the number of children that they have. It was the system, it still is the system and is there to allow people to live their lifestyles and be able to afford for their children, it does not discriminate against people who choose to go beyond the normal one or two children.


Who knows, my children may really benefit from having a caring mother who stays at home to look after her children in their time of need, when they are ill, having a bad time or just need company. We don't get stressed about holidays as their mum is always there, we don't stress about sickness because their mum is always there, we don't palm our kids off to strangers whilst we go to work because we don't need to. It may not be the modern way, both parents working and not seeing each other or being too stressed to be able to afford the mortgage but I didn't design the system.


This system should be encouraged more and more, maybe the government should take some of the mothers or fathers out of the working system and pay them for staying at home and nurturing their children and doing domestic duties to create a more relaxed and caring society instead of this explicit need for every last soul to go to work and get a job to feel pride.


Mums/Dads who stay at home care for their children and they get no direct payment from the government for this. The tax credits is some form of payment for my wife for doing that job. If I was earning more than £45,000 then I wouldn't need the money and it wouldn't be an issue as I could afford to live a satisfactory lifestyle.


I think your issue is more with the fact that you think people are incentivised to have more children for a financial gain, whereas people without children, not married or of an average wage say that they can't afford it.

StixUK

bloolagoon wrote: »

I just get so angry at those who scream - "tax those that earn £40k they are the ones that should suffer" when their true salary is higher.

I said maybe 2% more. If you were earning £40k with 4 children you would be entitled to tax credits and child benefit, admittedly not much, I am unsure of the figures.


The amount of money I receive is not just for me, people forget this.


A set amount of money is determined for each child and that is why the money is received.


What the tax system and tax credits system is doing is trying to bring the income divide closer together and to eliminate the poverty at the lowest end of the scale.


I don't think a lot of people want that by the sounds of things.


It all depends how many people that £40k is going to be shared by?


This is too simplistic to focus on purely on the amount received, it bears no relation to the number of people is has to provide for.


£40k for a single person/couple is a lot of money and should be more than sufficient, you even could support 2 children as well.


£40k for a family of 6 is maybe a little uncomfortable based on the demands of a modern day acceptable living standard.

FBaby

I would be interested to think what people think we should live off? Work it out for yourselves, disregard the fact that you feel I shouldn't have had 4 children, I can't change that now.

I think this questions sums it up how each will look at it from different perspective. You look at it from the view that no matter people's choice, they should be entitled to a decent life regardless or where the income to do so comes from. People like me look at it from the perspective that many of us have made the choice to be responsible, yet despite a higher income, and all the sacrifices we made in the way to get there, end up with no more disposable income because what is paid in taxes is redistributed to those who earn less.

It's not about what each should be entitled to, it's about fairness. You seem to have the attitude that those who earn more are just lucky. That again is typical attitude of those who earn less. It certainly isn't my experience.

What the tax system and tax credits system is doing is trying to bring the income divide closer together and to eliminate the poverty at the lowest end of the scale.

Income divide should be proportionate though where people getting a higher income (which DOES come with more demands in most cases) and who made sacrifices (not having the children the dreamt of) do get more disposable income than the family who have made choices based on what they could get from other people.

How you can't grasp this is beyond me.

Londonsu

StixUK wrote: »

My current situation is exactly as follows:


Housing Benefit = £30.75 per week
Council Tax Support = £0
Child Benefit = £61.80 per week
Child Tax Credit = £213 per week (£11,114 /52)
Working Tax Credit = £3 per week (£158/52)


GROSS Wage = £336 per week (£17,500 APPROX)
Net Wage = £291 per week


So my GROSS = £644 per week (£33,488 per annum)
My NET is = £599 per week (£31,148 per annum)


AFTER APRIL 2016 CHANGES TO TAX CREDITS:


I will lose APPROX £75 per month or £17 per week in CTC.


NEW GROSS = £627 per week (£32,604 per annum)
NEW NET = £582 per week (£30,264 per annum)


It sounds a lot but this is to share between 6 people and I suppose not many people would want to live on this for 6 people as it doesn't lead for a luxurious lifestyle.


I think that we live a good lifestyle with the money we receive but this money wouldn't be here unless we had the children and I suppose this is where most people will argue against the system. We could have children and afford it due to tax credits, not so much child benefit because everybody used to receive that so wasn't really considered an exclusive benefit for people that had children.


I am not whinging about the benefit being withdrawn and I don't recollect doing so, I consider myself to be comfortable and I people will be angry about that, why should you be comfortable whilst claiming in work benefits.


I don't receive these benefits for me or my wife though, there are benefits as a household that come from this but they are only derived from the fact that we have children and they are paid because we have children. Without children these wouldn't be paid.


This leads me to say that at the time that I had my children and anyone having children from the introduction of the tax credits system were given more to live off instantly so this says to me that government policy was set out to reduce the strain of people having children in low income families, to allow them a better lifestyle and I think that the system achieved that.


I would be interested to think what people think we should live off? Work it out for yourselves, disregard the fact that you feel I shouldn't have had 4 children, I can't change that now.


But what do you think is an acceptable income figure for a family of 6 in modern society?


I am genuinely interested for some well thought through answers, not the flippant remarks like "woah, wish I had that much" or "some people have got it too easy". Lets flip this conversation over the last few posts into a constructive, I have been fully transparent and willing to be judged on that as I have nothing to hide. I don't make the figures that I get paid, the government does that.


Also as a side note, you are correct, if the tax credits system wasn't in place we would more than likely would have not had 4 children. When 'pricing' up having extra children we could afford it due to receiving extra income from tax credits and child benefit and we also pledged to reuse as many of the previous childrens toys and clothes etc at the same time and we saved thousands by doing this, so we were thrifty as well when required.


I think it is too crude to say that we shouldn't have relied on the tax credits system for our income. How many couples completely ignored Child Benefit in their calculations when having a first or extra child and the resultant NI contributions towards State Pension? Are you really saying to me that no-one looked and factored that into their budget when deciding if they can afford the extra expense, I think not.


Also, how many people of an older age were looking forward to retiring at 60 or which many women were and all of a sudden that was changed to 65 to mirror equality with men and women. Subsequently you never know when and what it will be raised to. This change affected a mass of people who had planned for a certain retirement age and claiming their state pension but now have to possibly work for an extra 5 years. How crippling for those people to work all your life and be told you have to work 5 years more. If they were sensible people they would have planned to retire at 60 because they have been told for donkeys years that is when they will retire. Whoops, they should have planned that the government would change the goalposts.


Have you not noticed that the huge problem here is that the government has successfully got the likes of me and you disagreeing over small sums of money. A few thousand between me and you is nothing compared the billions flying around in the economy. I am no different from the other 4.5m households getting some form of tax credits out of the 26.4m households in the UK. That means that 17% of the UK claims tax credits, not a small minority by all accounts.


I suggest you take a look at this and on page 16 you will see what is considered the Minimum Income Standard for A couple with 2 children, which suggests it is £577 per week (if you ignore the childcare element) as my wife stays at home.


I currently receive £599 with 2 adults and 4 children. If you factor in the childcare costs for 4 children and possible sick days, holidays and the very fact that my wife would be unlikely to find a job paying more than minimum wage, it just isn't worth it.


So according the the Joseph Rowntree Foundation we do not live a Minimum Income Lifestyle for an acceptable standard of living as decided by real members of the public.


You should not be focusing on me claiming my tax credits and benefits as I am not well off. The income figure looks high yes. But if you were earning £45,386 with 4 children, you would also get some form of tax credits, like I do. The table below shows the limits for a family without any childcare responsibilities.


1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 4 Children 5 Children
£25,703 £32,264 £38,825 £45,386 £51,946


I suppose what I am trying to get at is if you are earning £34,000 with no childcare costs and have 2 children and you thought about having a 3rd. It would be reasonable to assume that you would include tax credits and child benefit as well as cutting back in your decision making. In this scenario you would qualify for an extra amount in tax credits and child benefit.


You wouldn't sit there and not take these into account when working out your budget and affordability, would you?


You might find these figures disturbing as this is what your government stated that people were allowed to earn based on the number of children that they have. It was the system, it still is the system and is there to allow people to live their lifestyles and be able to afford for their children, it does not discriminate against people who choose to go beyond the normal one or two children.


Who knows, my children may really benefit from having a caring mother who stays at home to look after her children in their time of need, when they are ill, having a bad time or just need company. We don't get stressed about holidays as their mum is always there, we don't stress about sickness because their mum is always there, we don't palm our kids off to strangers whilst we go to work because we don't need to. It may not be the modern way, both parents working and not seeing each other or being too stressed to be able to afford the mortgage but I didn't design the system.


This system should be encouraged more and more, maybe the government should take some of the mothers or fathers out of the working system and pay them for staying at home and nurturing their children and doing domestic duties to create a more relaxed and caring society instead of this explicit need for every last soul to go to work and get a job to feel pride.


Mums/Dads who stay at home care for their children and they get no direct payment from the government for this. The tax credits is some form of payment for my wife for doing that job. If I was earning more than £45,000 then I wouldn't need the money and it wouldn't be an issue as I could afford to live a satisfactory lifestyle.


I think your issue is more with the fact that you think people are incentivised to have more children for a financial gain, whereas people without children, not married or of an average wage say that they can't afford it.

Sorry that's bull about state pension age I have known since 1995 that my pension age as a woman would rise to 65
This is the chain of events
1995 - women's state pension age to be equalised
Following pressure from Europe, the Conservative Government was forced to announce plans to equalise state pension age for men and women. The timetable was the most relaxed possible and would raise pension age for women to 65 slowly from April 2010 to April 2020.
2007 - further rises in pension age to 66, 67, and then 68 introduced
The Labour Government passed a new law to raise state pension age to 66 between April 2024 and April 2026, then to 67 between April 2034 and April 2036 and to 68 between April 2044 and April 2046.
6 April 2010 - women's state pension age begins to rise
The first women are affected by the equalisation changes. Women born 6 April 1950 to 5 May 1950 have to wait until 6 May 2010 to reach state pension age, a delay of up to one month.
Entitlement to Pension Credit for men and women is now linked to women's state pension age rather than the age of 60. A similar change restricts entitlement in England only to free bus travel. Entitlement to Winter Fuel Payment is also linked to women's state pension age and the qualifying date for the payment in winter 2010/11 moves to 5 July 2010. It will rise by six months each year.
May 2010 - further change promised
In opposition the Conservative Party had announced it would raise pension age for men and women more quickly than existing plans. After it came to power with the Liberal Democrats in May 2010 this pledge was repeated in the programme for government set out in the Coalition Agreement.
"We will...hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women."
October 2010 - revised changes
The commitment in the Coalition Agreement fell foul of EU equality laws which allowed the government to equalise state pension ages as late as April 2020 but would not allow further discrimination between men and women during that process. So in the Spending Review of October 2010 the plans were revised. Women's state pension age would now be raised more quickly to reach 65 in 2018 and then both men and women's pension age would rise to 66 by 2020. Critics pointed out that plan breached the Coalition Agreement promise of 'no sooner than...2020 for women'


So yeah I now have to work an extra year, no big deal as the plus side is that I can no longer be compelled to retire and can work on if I want.

NYM

Do people still get CTC if they don't work ?

Icequeen99

NYM wrote: »

Do people still get CTC if they don't work ?

Yes, providing other income is less than 16105 (12125 from April 2016)

IQ

mejaa

NYM wrote: »

Do people still get CTC if they don't work ?

Yes, they get the full award of ctc, but obviously no working tax.
It replaces income support for children.

evenasus

FBaby wrote: »

I think this questions sums it up how each will look at it from different perspective. You look at it from the view that no matter people's choice, they should be entitled to a decent life regardless or where the income to do so comes from. People like me look at it from the perspective that many of us have made the choice to be responsible, yet despite a higher income, and all the sacrifices we made in the way to get there, end up with no more disposable income because what is paid in taxes is redistributed to those who earn less.

It's not about what each should be entitled to, it's about fairness. You seem to have the attitude that those who earn more are just lucky. That again is typical attitude of those who earn less. It certainly isn't my experience.



Income divide should be proportionate though where people getting a higher income (which DOES come with more demands in most cases) and who made sacrifices (not having the children the dreamt of) do get more disposable income than the family who have made choices based on what they could get from other people.

How you can't grasp this is beyond me.

Because they want what other people have strived to achieve but they want it paid for by other people.