What's the fuss about this new benefit caps?

wotsthat

ggb1979 wrote: »

Please tell me you cannot pension yourself into low income brackets to claim benefits? That would just be ridiculous.

It's hardly a state secret.

Stick around kid - you might make your family better off.

remorseless

Physics wrote: »

Fair enough. What effect do you think this will have on the country, if any? I suspect - though perhaps I am wrong - that people are still going to have kids, whether or not they can afford the lifestyle you or I deem sufficient. People seem to want them.

how do you think the rest of the world does it? Most of EU doesn't have these generous benefits and yet they seem to function!

Are all families with kids in the UK usually receive some financial benefits?

wotsthat

michaels wrote: »

Going OT but yes, SS to minimum wage and then personal contributions down to benefits cut off level. This puts me 20k net worse off which is 10k less saved and 10k added to mortgage. Net result is about 50k in pension at a cost of 20k net. Other people might do the same at 5k per year extra into pension for 10 years which would cost a higher rate taxpayer 2.9k net PA so my way 'saves' about 9k.

You're my hero!

lisyloo

I can see this causing problems what if you have 3 children the something bad happens.

The idea is that the state is willing to pay for 2 kids.
If you want more you pay for them which includes contingency for things going wrong.
Does no-one else believe in financial planning and contingency?
I eralise you can't insurance for every risk, but you can save up.
Playnig devils advocate here, but if you can't afford them then perhaps you shouldn't have them?
Why shouldn't the parents plan for "something bad" rather than expecting the rest of the world to pick up the tab.
Death, accident, illness, divorce etc. are not unforseeable events (see I've listed them there, so they are by definition forseeable).

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

The idea is that the state is willing to pay for 2 kids.
If you want more you pay for them which includes contingency for things going wrong.
Does no-one else believe in financial planning and contingency?
I eralise you can't insurance for every risk, but you can save up.
Playnig devils advocate here, but if you can't afford them then perhaps you shouldn't have them?
Why shouldn't the parents plan for "something bad" rather than expecting the rest of the world to pick up the tab.
Death, accident, illness, divorce etc. are not unforseeable events (see I've listed them there, so they are by definition forseeable).

Can you insure for divorce and as been seen a lot of PPI wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

Physics

remorseless wrote: »

how do you think the rest of the world does it? Most of EU doesn't have these generous benefits and yet they seem to function!

Are all families with kids in the UK usually receive some financial benefits?

Do France, Germany, Holland and (about as EU as we are) the Scandanavian countries not have a social-security/child benefit system? I didn't realise.

Certainly I imagine Spain, Italy and Greece might not, but they are not really economically comparable.

Most families do receive some financial benefits. But it tends to be means tested.

Edit: As for how the rest of the world does it, you tell me! Do poor people in Africa have kids? Do rich people? There is almost no 'benefits system' there, and the wealth disparity even greater. How do you think the life expectations of a child from a poor family compare to those of from a rich one? Should we emulate this disparity, or turn away from it?

Mummyisbeauty

Definitely think that pension contributions need to be taken into account before assessing eligability for receiving benefits.
I could never put everything into a pension to claim benefits that I don't really need purely because I can.
Plenty of people struggling out there working hard at lower paying work that need benefits more than I do.

michaels

And loads of rich people pensioners getting a free TV licence, winter fuel allowance, state pension etc etc. Lots of dual earners on 50k each getting child benefit when a single earner of 60k does not. Loads of people who's kids get free state education or who use the NHS even though they could afford to pay. How do you decide which state benefits it is 'right' to claim and which it is 'wrong'?

Mummyisbeauty

All of those are not means tested though or if they are they aren't going round the rules. The benefits you claim are means tested.
One small change to make it income before deductions (any deductions including pension contributions) and they can close that loophole.

lisyloo

Can you insure for divorce

I do accept you can't cover ever eventuality although you can certainly make sure you aren't penniless on day 1.

I don't believe that means that no-one should plan for anything at all and just fall at the mercy of the state.
Personally I want more for my family than the safety net that's offered.