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

Blue22

StixUK wrote: »

My current situation is exactly as follows:
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.

Thank you for being honest about your income.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the gist of your argument is that people and families not eligible for tax credits should pay more in order that lower income families maintain their level of benefits?

Can I just explain, from my perspective, why I disagree and that an income of over £45000 is not a huge amount for a family

I'm all for families and I had a large family myself although it was before the dawn of tax credits. We as a family had a good income and I did spend a few years as a SAHM but there is no way that our income was a result of 'being lucky' or coming from a privileged background. The high income was because my husband spent years working 80+ hours a week with less than a weeks holiday a year.

Now think of a similar family today, who have 4 children, like you and earn £60K/year. I'm sure you must think that's loads but after tax and NI they are left with just £42125. Their motivation for working so hard is to support their family but at the same time they are paying almost £18000 to support others. In return they are entitled to nothing, no tax credits or child benefits.

So they have about £11000 a year more than you. But there is no way they would be eligible for a secure tenancy in affordable social housing like you are. Instead they would probably have a mortgage and all the other associated costs of home ownership which would eat into that £11000. They also do not have the benefit of 'free' transport from a company car so several more £1000s needed to run a car in order to commute to work.

From my experience, I doubt there would be much between that family and yours after factoring in those costs so do you still expect them to pay more in order for your income to be maintained?

Well as I said I was that family and I would certainly resent having to pay more

evenasus

Blue22 wrote: »

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the gist of your argument is that people and families not eligible for tax credits should pay more in order that lower income families maintain their level of benefits?

That's how I interpret their posts.

bloolagoon

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.

It may not be luxury but benefits are not to support luxury - why should benefits be paid to a luxury level anyway? You also need to factor in that it is lower because of your company car. To lease a car, insure, maintain is easily £200 a month minimum - you get that benefit so need to include it as without it your benefits would be higher. They are lower because of your car so you need to factor the free car in.

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 have no issue with you saying you are comfortable - we all know that in work benefits make people comfortable. The issue I personally have is that you are saying you think others should pay more in tax when their incomes are lower.

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.

You still made that choice. It isn't like you lost your job or had a disability or separated, you made that choice to bring 4 children up on benefits.


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.

The system did achieve that. It also achieved low wages and high housing, something those above the limits needed to accommodate too without any benefit (by that I mean getting anything in return not money)

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.

You need to see that those above your limits don't get much more and in certain circumstances less.

For example when I was in London after childcare and rent we had £400 a month left. You get a lot more than that - but you want our taxes raised because we had less children. Yes we did have less children because we couldn't afford them. We could have went onto benefits and afforded them but it didn't seem right to do that to either the children or the tax payers. The thought of giving up work and having more children didn't enter my head.

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 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.

The £13 a week CB when your childcare bill is £400 a week really didn't come into the equation.

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.

It's a ridiculous standard that basically puts everyone in poverty - myself included. You can't just keep increasing figures and claiming poverty


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.
neither do we and we are the ones you want to tax more

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.
Yes and the system needs to change which is why over the years they will get lower and lower. Just because something was introduced doesn't make it right. The new 2 children rule should have been introduced years ago

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.

they absolutely do benefit shame others need to work eh

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.
You are earning circa that - it's just its benefits not wages - you still miss that point entirely

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.

It is absolutely my point. You will never see the other side until you are there.

Eg - In london I had £421 a month after childcare and rents (now yes I could have maybe moved to a really bad area and had a bit more but it was only just above the LHA for 2 bedrooms. We chose to have a 1 bedroom place and sleep in the living room with the children in the bedroom. £421 with 2 adults and 2 children.

Further eg - when we moved North (as realised we couldn't afford London and a decent life) I went part time. Life was bliss. We could afford a day out, we weren't living on a very low income anymore. We eventually bought a home with a garden. Then redundancy happened. It left us with just my part time wage to support the family. No Tax Credits - as they are annual and no HB as we owned a house. Back to under £100 a week to support the family.

When they removed CB I remember thinking - "surely they need to take childcare into account". No they didn't, I felt for any single person who may have been in that situation.

so you see often those you are saying to TAX aren't better off.

The issue I have is that you want to Tax those that YOU see as being on a high income. Income that is not dissimilar to your own. I fully agree with increasing taxes - we need to but any increase should be set at a level above benefits. You cannot scream to tax people in order for you to lose less benefits. That single person may have student loans to pay, may have to pay for carers for his elderly mother or may just want to save money to have children. I know many couples who CANNOT afford children as they need to save to address loss of income due to childcare or lower wages if they stay home. They are saving like mad, doing the right thing and you want them to pay for your choice to have 4 children.

I agree with supporting low income families - especially ones who could afford their children and the unexpected happened. I don't really have an issue with you claiming for 4 and supporting you. What I have an issue with is you saying that we should pay MORE when disposable income is not much different and I couldn't afford another child. In short it's your attitude that you think anyone over £40K should pay more tax to prevent you losing benefit.

StixUK

I finally think I am grasping the issue here.

Some of you think that I don't want lose my benefits and I want you to be taxed to support my lifestyle.

I don't want you to think that of me but as much as you disagree with the money being given, I disagree with the money being taken away.

The government have successfully made us fight between one and another when it is neither of us that setup this system.

As much as companies and people using tax loopholes to reduce their tax contributions, I am using the system to provide for my children.

i wish that there was a substantial amount of council housing out there so that people had greater leverage when they start families and the ability to get on the ladder, so that the housing crisis that has brewed since Thatcher sold them off didn't exist.

I wish that second homes were abolished as they ruin local housing for local people.

I think you shouldn't be arguing with me as I didn't set the policy back years ago and I was raised benefitting from the extra income that tax credits introduced.

I suppose my attitude comes from my background and my feelings that I will work within the system that is provided by our government.

I have done nothing wrong in everything that I have done and it isn't irresponsible as I could financially manage to raise my children based in the circumstances that were laid before me. Regardless of where the income comes from.

If I had two children I would receive very little support from the state and so be it but the pm I would 2 fewer mouths to feed.

You are angry that I live in council housing and pay a reduced rent, this should be more widely available, I did not sell off all the council housing to raise cash oh and not replace them.

I did not implement the system where money was given to you based on the number of children that you had and may have been/is somewhat generous.

I have everything that every poor person should be able to aspire to. To have a secure house with an affordable rent, to be able to raise a family in that secure house. To be able to participate in normal social and leisure activities so that my children are not disadvantaged and have the same opportunities as children from more wealthy and stable backgrounds.

I am grateful to the tax credits system for allowing me to do this but shaving a grand off every in work family claiming tax credits will not resolve the bigger societal problems of high housing and childcare costs that make most families struggle, they should be tackled before attacking everyone (not inc. me) at the bottom of the socio-economic structure.

You will also be penalising people who had more children by making them exempt from any benefits passed their second child if they have to reclaim their benefits at a later date. This is a retrospective punishment and was as cruel as the benefits cap to existing claimants.

People think that the out work, council housed, tax credit claiming families caused this financial mess when actually I suspect that we did none of the sort, not intentionally anyway.

To address an earlier point in another post. My car is not free. I pay the equivalent of £43 per month to run it. I also still have my moped sat in my garden costing me maybe £25 per month as this job is only a 3 month contract. I also have to pay for any private mileage but as I have a 7 seater that costs me money to run I am not completely exempt from car running costsnas suggested.

bloolagoon

StixUK wrote: »

I finally think I am grasping the issue here.

Some of you think that I don't want lose my benefits and I want you to be taxed to support my lifestyle.

Yes that's what you have said several times so it's where we get the idea from


i wish that there was a substantial amount of council housing out there so that people had greater leverage when they start families and the ability to get on the ladder, so that the housing crisis that has brewed since Thatcher sold them off didn't exist.

You can only blame Thatcher so much - the HA are given the market value back to them but they are not rebuilding

I think you shouldn't be arguing with me as I didn't set the policy back years ago and I was raised benefitting from the extra income that tax credits introduced.

Why not? We all could have taken your route. We all could work part time so our incomes are under £20K and have had 5 children. People don't because they realise its not the responsible thing to do. Just because you get offered something doesn't mean should do it and that people cannot question it. It's like getting drunk at a free bar and claiming it's not your fault you got drunk as it was offered free

I did not implement the system where money was given to you based on the number of children that you had and may have been/is somewhat generous.

No it's not your fault but then don't complain that it's changing. It will get worse not better so you need to find ways to increase your income

I have everything that every poor person should be able to aspire to. To have a secure house with an affordable rent, to be able to raise a family in that secure house. To be able to participate in normal social and leisure activities so that my children are not disadvantaged and have the same opportunities as children from more wealthy and stable backgrounds.

Teaching your children you don't have to work for things, just take the free option. I don't see why you think you should have the same opportunities as some one who is wealthy. i certainly don't. My children have less than those who are wealthy because we know we aren't wealthy.

I am grateful to the tax credits system for allowing me to do this but shaving a grand off every in work family claiming tax credits will not resolve the bigger societal problems of high housing and childcare costs that make most families struggle, they should be tackled before attacking everyone (not inc. me) at the bottom of the socio-economic structure.

It's higher than a grand - you have underestimated what you will lose. You also may end up paying market rent if they count benefits in the £30K limit.

see comments above

Lanzarote1938

It really is the job of the parents to ensure their children are secure and not disadvantaged, not the taxpayer.
Have you considered how you would manage if you lost your job and the benefit cap kicked in? Would you be able to manage on £20K a year?

FBaby

As much as companies and people using tax loopholes to reduce their tax contributions, I am using the system to provide for my children.

You say it yourself: you are using the system. Well accept that the system is changing, end of. You can't use something to your benefit and then cry when you can't use it AS MUCH as you did previously. Unfortunately, when you become dependent on others for your lifestyle, you also depends on changes out of your control and there is nothing you can do about it. Again, it was YOUR choice to go about it that way.

At least some people are happy about it!

blackandwhitebunny

I don't normally get involved in these discussions and I'm sure I'll get shot down in flames but there is something I would like to say:

[QUOTE=StixUK;68810635
But hey the removal of £1,000 per annum from me will make up for all that. Go tax that rich person earning more than £40,000 a couple of percent more that will fill the gap and they will be able to accommodate the decrease in income as it will be removing a luxury not a necessity.[/QUOTE]

I am one of those people who earn above £40 000 in fact my husband does as well - so yes we do have a fair number of luxuries. My issue is why people think that their luxuries are so much more important than mine. Why should I give up my luxuries to pay more tax so that the government can distribute it to others to pay for their luxuries?
Because like it or not having four children is a luxury. Large numbers of parents can't afford that luxury, yet you expect them to pay for you to do so.

evenasus

StixUK wrote: »

I did not implement the system where money was given to you based on the number of children that you had and may have been/is somewhat generous.

No you didn't. But you're complaining now the Government is trying to correct the situation.

zagfles

Icequeen99 wrote: »

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

IQ

Just to clarify - that's max CTC, income can be higher (sometimes a lot higher) and still get CTC but reduced by the taper.