Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

bloolagoon

GirlFromMars wrote: »

If you can think of a way to legislate for increased wages across the board I'd be very happy.

Business models that push for maximum profits, minimum tax, minimum expenditure & treat the workforce as a "resource" are great if you're a shareholder. Not so good for any of the rest of us. And alongside BTL Landlords & spiralling housing costs they are a tragedy.

Funnily enough before tax credits it worked. Very hard to reverse it but reverse it must.

Fatherof2mids

bloolagoon wrote: »

How are they not achieving that? A family earning £15,000 with 4 children will be the same net as £45k earner.

What are we teaching school leavers. Get a low paid job to be paid the same as one you need to work for. Your children don't have any advantages. They have less advantages as they see you less.

A family with 4 children is the extreme and I have already stated I agree with the cap on children at 2.
by using the family of 4 you warp the figures slightly as a family with 4 children where a salary of 45k is present would be entitled to over 10k in tax credit for childcare

sky111

Fatherof2mids wrote: »

Children we be affected , and goes far beyond second hand phones. The fact that kids from families on benefits already perform significantly worse at gcse level than those from working families shows the severity of the issue facing children in poverty.
These cuts will make it worse for these children, attainment gaps will widen, and the idea of meritocracy will disappear from our shores.

I say the following as a reality check...........................


Predict a rise in Fostering and as usual there are those out there whose mantra is the old idiom


One man's loss is another man's gain.


Will the government achieve the expected savings in benefit cuts if the social bill increases? Queue the social worker and Fostering.


I've had a thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Maybe there are some working poor who might consider giving up low pay job and some SAHM who probably might be better off becoming foster parents.


.........................................................................................
How much do you get paid for fostering?

The amount of fostering pay depends on the type of foster care you move into. All carers receive a standard fostering allowance for each of their children, whilst the additional fostering payments will vary according to each child’s age and individual needs.
How does my foster care allowance work?

Foster care payments are split into two parts – the fostering maintenance allowance (which covers the cost of looking after a child) and your fostering fee (our recognition of your wonderful work).
The maintenance element of your fostering pay covers things like:

• food
• clothing
• toiletries
• pocket money/savings
• Christmas, birthday or other festival presents
• leisure activities, including holidays and transport costs

Fostering fees also vary according to certain circumstances. Foster care isn’t a nine to five job and involves a great amount of skill and dedication, especially where teenagers, siblings or more challenging children are welcomed into a home. Families fostering these children receive a higher foster care allowance, both as extra gratitude from us and as a means to meet the greater financial demands that looking after vulnerable young people like these can entail.
What will my new employment status be when fostering?

The HMRC recognises foster care as self-employment, a status with tax benefits that can really make a difference to carers’ lives. It also means keeping a record of the ages and dates of when you foster children, for the completion of your annual tax return.
Once approved as a foster carer, we encourage you to seek further advice from your local tax office. They will clear up any questions you may have, and can help you get the most out of your new employment status.
Do foster carers pay tax?

Foster carers do still pay tax, but benefit from a fixed tax exemption of up to £10,000 per year (or less, if for a shorter period of time), which is shared equally among all foster carers in the same household. This means you don’t have to pay tax on the first £10,000 of income you make from fostering.
Fostering allowance examples

Fostering allowance varies depending on the needs of each child, but it isn’t always easy to work out just how the allowance works and the typical amounts available. This is especially true when you factor in tax relief, an additional option for foster carers where the qualifying amount is based on the initial £10,000. Following that, the rate is £200 per week, per placement aged under 11, and £250 per week, per placement for children aged over 11.

FBaby

Life is easier now. Minimum childcare and promotions means we are very well off but we sacrificed to get here.

I think that's where lies the frustration of those who are called 'greedy'. They compare the life of those who don't need to rely on tax credits to their own and all they see is the unfairness of them being able to afford more luxuries. However, they don't appreciate the sacrifices they had to make to get there, sacrifices that they themselves would have been outraged to have to make.

I am pleased to be where I am but I can start reflecting and see the things that I have missed out as a result. No regrets, but certainly realisation that it's not all or nothing. Money to afford luxuries is not everything.

BJV

GirlFromMars wrote: »

Yup, love and respect for your children, is clearly what the NHS were looking for to cure Parkinson's & MS. Thanks for your invaluable help. I'm sure there'll be a Nobel Prize on its way to you shortly.

I hope fit healthy parents will be offered and will take jobs.

I am worried about what will happen to parents who through no fault of their own are unable to work.

I also hope that working families who choose to have children they can afford have checked their crystal ball to ensure that they won't fall on hard times within 25 years of procreating.

Thank you for the life lesson, where would I be without you to point out the error of my ways? Where would I be without you to misrepresent a post and twist it into something completely unrelated?


I have looked through my posts and no where have I mentioned or indicated that parents who need the benefits should not have them. In fact if you take the time to read my posts I am stating people should be encouraged to not be dependant on benefits.


As I have said many times benefits should be there to help people. Our benefits system is amazing. Just a shame that there are so many people abusing the system that guidelines have to be in place where the safety net has to be so tight to stop the flood gates of fraudulent claims.


Hey if I had a magic wand, everyone would have everything they needed, everything they wanted. We would all live in five bed mansions, with indoor swimming pools, big garden ( ok well big enough for my daughters pony, which under the new system I would have enough money to buy ).


Ok, so how would we pay for it, who would pay for it? Well naturally I could not work because I would be too busy looking after my family and my daughters pony, so perhaps we just tax the life out of everyone else who does or better still get them to work for nothing. Guess we could divide the population and have a third of workers who live in pens and get fed left overs who could do all the jobs so that the rest of us could do what ever we wanted. Hey presto! done sorted, have as many children as you want, have no aspirations, no need for ambition because its ok I am entitled, the government owes me!


Ok so now back to the real world. I respect your opinion, I think it is wrong but you are entitled to it just as I am to mine. Our system can not carry on as it is. It costs too much and we can not pay for it. So because of the minority of people abusing the system we have to have tighter and tighter guidelines and hoops to jump through.


It is not the system that is broken it is us as a "entitled to society". The harsh reality is that there are too many people claiming benefits that we can not pay for. If limiting the amount of children that someone can claim for means that we can save money and plough it into research for as you said Parkinson's. ( by the way I have had two family members who had Parkinson's so please do not use that as an example ) fantastic. If we can use the money to help parents with children with special needs spot on. If we can use the money to help re-train or improve the quality of life for people even better.


So with the greatest respect, please come and live in the real world. Try it you never know you may like it!

missapril75

BJV wrote: »

Guess we could divide the population and have a third of workers who live in pens and get fed left overs who could do all the jobs so that the rest of us could do what ever we wanted. Hey presto! done sorted

Ssshhh, you'll give them ideas.

dodger1

cavework wrote: »

So just a simple probably stupid question but here goes..
who pays for the NMW increase.. the employers?..their customers..
no ..
it will be the end user
That would be you probably?
If employers are forced to increase the wages they are paying , just WHO is going to subsidise this increase?
Please don't tell me it will just be the relief in tax credits


Please can someone help me out on this one , as I would really like to know the answer

First of all the vast majority of the working population is not on NMW so the increase to companies is a lot less than many think and in retail where much of the NMW is paid, wages only form 18% of costs and NI for employers has been reduced in the budget as has corporation tax.

As for who pays, well some companies will simply make a smaller profit, (and some because of tax changes in the budget will take the hit with no effect on profits), some will pay a smaller dividend to shareholders, and yes some will no doubt have to make a small increase in their charges to the end user, so all in all I doubt that the end user will be hit in any significant way.

p00hsticks

dodger1 wrote: »

As for who pays, well some companies will simply make a smaller profit, (and some because of tax changes in the budget will take the hit with no effect on profits), some will pay a smaller dividend to shareholders, and yes some will no doubt have to make a small increase in their charges to the end user, so all in all I doubt that the end user will be hit in any significant way.

You missed "some decide they can make do with four sales assistants instead of five.... "

cavework

Quote..
As for who pays, well some companies will simply make a smaller profit, (and some because of tax changes in the budget will take the hit with no effect on profits), some will pay a smaller dividend to shareholders, and yes some will no doubt have to make a small increase in their charges to the end user, so all in all I doubt that the end user will be hit in any significant way.


The end user will be hit if the most effective way of absorbing the extra employment cost is to reduce staffing levels..I am sure that will come way before shareholders dividends take a hit
As for all those changes in the budget .. SMEs in the very near future will also have to build in the cost of pension contributions for staff who opt in.

dodger1

p00hsticks wrote: »

You missed "some decide they can make do with four sales assistants instead of five.... "

And if they didn't need five in the first place then fine but I don't recall a sudden increase in unemployment when the NMW was first introduced and there were plenty of scaremongers saying it would happen then as well.