Question Child Benefit changes

[Furr]

Lower Taxes are preferable to Benefits, plus with Benefits the only way to make them even slightly fair it having them assessed, but assessing things costs money and that's exactly what the Government doesn't want to do..

Anyway, that the media managed to find all these people on 40k+ plus who "need" their benefit money is a joke, just shows the mindset that people have now...

 

[old.user4556]

You're fucking right we do.

 

[Chilly]

You're fucking right we do.

bollocks. choose between luxury and nappies.

 

[rynnor]

If you can't afford to have 30 kids don't have them. If you can't afford a couple of kids on 45k then you are obviously spending money on shiny things that you don't need.

Hmm - its actually pretty expensive to bring up kids - theres the nappies/wipes/food/car seats/pushchairs/cots etc. etc. and when they hit school theres school trips/uniforms etc. etc.

It might be possible in somewhere with cheap property but 45k isnt much in the regions that have non-public jobs.

Its a thankless job but somebodies gotta do it or your all f00ked when you reach retirement.

 

[old.user4556]

bollocks. choose between luxury and nappies.

I was referring to:

We paid for those boobs, imo we get to motorboat them for free.

Furr's post wasn't showing for me when I posted that comment.

 

[yaruar]

Exactly.

Beyond medical and food bills, what extra costs do kids have that are imperative? (Asking, not commenting. Well, bit of commenting with a stance to change view if answered )

Or are peope who make 45ki a year trying to keep kids AND their usual luxury way of life(that of 45k/year)?

Because that ofcourse means you can't afford it.

As said before nursery fees until your kid goes to school. Anywhere between 750 to upwards of 1500 a month (we're currently about average on just under 900 a month for one child) That's over 10,000 a year per child.

I earn 39k a year at the moment, that one cost alone brings my salary down to the equivalent of earning 21k a year before rent or any costs and 21k is low enough that you would struggle to live in London these days.

For two children double that, etc. Or of course one of you can give up your job and future career prospects.

 

[cHodAX]

How many pints would it take before you shag her?

Vote now!

I would spunk on her face after half a shandy.

 

[cHodAX]

As said before nursery fees until your kid goes to school. Anywhere between 750 to upwards of 1500 a month (we're currently about average on just under 900 a month for one child) That's over 10,000 a year per child.

I earn 39k a year at the moment, that one cost alone brings my salary down to the equivalent of earning 21k a year before rent or any costs and 21k is low enough that you would struggle to live in London these days.

For two children double that, etc. Or of course one of you can give up your job and future career prospects.

Those nursery fees are a disgrace mate, I feel for you. London or not there is no way they can justify charging those prices per child. That is double the rate of other big cities like Manchester.

 

[Raven]

Move. Its easy to commute from plenty of places. I can't understand why anyone would actually live in London. My wife is a child minder and we used to live in Surrey, unless inflation has abnormally affected southern child care prices what you are paying is way over the odds.

 

[Tom]

I'm of the opinion that if you're in the upper tax bracket, you can afford to pay for your own children.

If you can't, don't have them. Benefits should be for those that would starve without them.

 

[yaruar]

Those nursery fees are a disgrace mate, I feel for you. London or not there is no way they can justify charging those prices per child. That is double the rate of other big cities like Manchester.

It's 40 quid a day, so not that bad, how can they afford to hire staff charging half that, unless it's council subsidised? The 1500 was a place we nearly went for in central london to tie in with work, we soon realised 70 quid a day was taking the piss though.

 

[mr.Blacky]

An unexpected impact is that women currently earn pension credits for the state pension as a side effect of drawing child benefit will lose those credits which would mean a lower state pension at retirement because they lack qualifying years.

A bit confused about this part. I dont know anything about the UK pension/child support rules. But are you saying that people are puting the child benefit money into a pension fund?
If so I do think that that is wrong. Surely the money should be spent for the benefit of the child?

 

[rynnor]

A bit confused about this part. I dont know anything about the UK pension/child support rules. But are you saying that people are puting the child benefit money into a pension fund?
If so I do think that that is wrong. Surely the money should be spent for the benefit of the child?

No - basically women who stay at home to bring up kids dont earn pension credits - your state pension is based on how many years you paid the minimum contribution through earnings.

So women who have kids and stay at home get lower pensions at retirement - to counter this they linked it to child benefit so that you got credits but if you lose entitlement to child benefit you'll be back to square one and lower state pension.

 

[DaGaffer]

Move. Its easy to commute from plenty of places. I can't understand why anyone would actually live in London. My wife is a child minder and we used to live in Surrey, unless inflation has abnormally affected southern child care prices what you are paying is way over the odds.

Doesn't look way above the odds to me; that's the kind of figure my brother was paying for his daughter in east London nearly ten years ago, and I'm going to get hit for €1000 a month in Dublin when my daughter goes into childcare in the new year, and that's not in a particularly posh or central area, its just the going rate.

Yes you could move, but you increase your transport costs and destroy what quality of life you do have because you never see your kids. Most people living and working in the middle of London aren't doing it for shits and giggles, they're doing it because that's where the work is, simple as.

 

[cHodAX]

It's 40 quid a day, so not that bad, how can they afford to hire staff charging half that, unless it's council subsidised? The 1500 was a place we nearly went for in central london to tie in with work, we soon realised 70 quid a day was taking the piss though.

No mate it is shocking, my local nursery is £500 a month and recently got a number off excellence remarks on the OFSTED report. London of course is more expensive but nearly twice?? Nope, you are getting ripped off in London, no doubt.

 

[Zenith.UK]

All you people going on about £40k and higher rate tax earners... I'd *DREAM* of earning that much. My wife is currently off work looking after our youngest one because we can't afford the childcare. She could work fulltime, but there's no point because she would just be working to pay the childcare. Assuming she did have a fulltime job, our salaries COMBINED wouldn't total £40k.

Child Benefit is definitely factored into our budget because it is one income we can rely on apart from my own. Tax credits go up and down like a yoyo depending on which droid keys your details in that quarter.

I work fulltime, sometimes with long hours, and I'm on 60% of the national average salary. Yes, I *could* get a higher paying job but my job is moderately easy and I have a freedom of movement many would be jealous of. I worked 16 hours today and drove for 6.75 of them (260miles all over North and Mid Wales).

People pontificating about "you shouldn't have children if you can't afford them" really piss me off no end. Those people should leave raising children to others because they plainly don't understand that children are a necessity for our future. I didn't set out or ask for 3 children but I have them. It's like playing cards, you play the hand that you're dealt and you do the best you can.

 

[cHodAX]

All you people going on about £40k and higher rate tax earners... I'd *DREAM* of earning that much. My wife is currently off work looking after our youngest one because we can't afford the childcare. She could work fulltime, but there's no point because she would just be working to pay the childcare. Assuming she did have a fulltime job, our salaries COMBINED wouldn't total £40k.

Child Benefit is definitely factored into our budget because it is one income we can rely on apart from my own. Tax credits go up and down like a yoyo depending on which droid keys your details in that quarter.

I work fulltime, sometimes with long hours, and I'm on 60% of the national average salary. Yes, I *could* get a higher paying job but my job is moderately easy and I have a freedom of movement many would be jealous of. I worked 16 hours today and drove for 6.75 of them (260miles all over North and Mid Wales).

People pontificating about "you shouldn't have children if you can't afford them" really piss me off no end. Those people should leave raising children to others because they plainly don't understand that children are a necessity for our future. I didn't set out or ask for 3 children but I have them. It's like playing cards, you play the hand that you're dealt and you do the best you can.

People like you are the people who should be getting it. It must really stick in your throat that high earners get the same amount of child benefit as you though, when they clearly don't need it. Then again it must not be very nice to see some old slag paying for new tits with child benefit money and getting £29,000 a year from the government to sit on her arse all day and screw random dickheads.

All another sign of why this country is so fucked up, we help the less deserving to a greater degree than those who actually need the help and are doing their best to stay afloat.

 

[Pfy]

Personally I fail to see how someone in the higher tax bracket is automatically well off ...

As of next year I will earn £44,450 a year (just agreed 4 year pay deal) and I'm certainly not comfortable. Everything is budgeted and we very rarely have anything left over to spend on going out and doing stuff with the kids.

The whole country appears to think that anyone in the higher tax bracket is well off and can afford this that and the other when it's simply not true. No Working tax credits as of next year, no Child Benefit in 3. Anyway, theres ways around keeping the child benefit, for instance my company offers a 'salary sacrifice' scheme.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Umm, i'm missnig something here.

People complain about child costs and then compare the costs to their own salary. Then say "ofcourse one of you can stay home to take care of kids".

No one is counting their partners salaray into it?

So if it's 10k/year, it's out of 80k/year for two, not out of 39k/year.

Ofcourse it's gonna cost if you just shove your kid to a nursery to keep on trucking career wise. You either do that, or one stays home. It's been like that sice the ages. But if two work, you get twice the pay.

It's not plausible to have the triangle of childcare/money\luxury with no restraints.

I'm just thinking thse 40k earners have their "budget" set a bit high.

For Example; how many toys did you last month? The month before? How many consoles are your kids fiddlinga bout with and how many child DVDs are sittting on your shelf?

Or is your budget "They get food and play with my old console" and that's it.

People pontificating about "you shouldn't have children if you can't afford them" really piss me off no end. Those people should leave raising children to others because they plainly don't understand that children are a necessity for our future. I didn't set out or ask for 3 children but I have them. It's like playing cards, you play the hand that you're dealt and you do the best you can.

You can have a litter of 10 if condoms are a problem in your household, just don't expect others to pay for those 10. Or give you any special treatment for it(you people with baby carriages know what i'm talking about )

 

[cHodAX]

Personally I fail to see how someone in the higher tax bracket is automatically well off ...

As of next year I will earn £44,450 a year (just agreed 4 year pay deal) and I'm certainly not comfortable. Everything is budgeted and we very rarely have anything left over to spend on going out and doing stuff with the kids.

The whole country appears to think that anyone in the higher tax bracket is well off and can afford this that and the other when it's simply not true. No Working tax credits as of next year, no Child Benefit in 3. Anyway, theres ways around keeping the child benefit, for instance my company offers a 'salary sacrifice' scheme.

Reasonably large mortgage in an expensive area though? Or is £44,450 your total income for the entire family? How many kids?

Living in the south-east can make a huge difference as well, glad I live in the north for those very reasons, cost of living and housing is much more sensible up here even after lower salaries are taken into account.

 

[DaGaffer]

Reasonably large mortgage in an expensive area though? Or is £44,450 your total income for the entire family? How many kids?

Living in the south-east can make a huge difference as well, glad I live in the north for those very reasons, cost of living and housing is much more sensible up here even after lower salaries are taken into account.

Even using national average figures, 44K isn't that much if you have a family, irrespective of location; assuming a modest 5% pension contribution your take home is 30K. Average UK mortgage is currently 900 per month (so 10.8K pa), average childcare for one child is between 640 and 800 per month (2008 figures), leaving disposable income of, at best, 1000 per month, to cover food, utilities, transport etc. And yet 44K is a high-rate taxpayer and considered "rich" by some people. Go figure...

 

[Pfy]

Reasonably large mortgage in an expensive area though? Or is £44,450 your total income for the entire family? How many kids?

Living in the south-east can make a huge difference as well, glad I live in the north for those very reasons, cost of living and housing is much more sensible up here even after lower salaries are taken into account.

Life in the South East, not an overly large house/mortgage. Mrs works an hour or 2 a day to get experience for working in a school. Earns £200 a month so pretty much just one salary. 2 kids, 6 and 3.

Don't have sky TV, don't have flat screen televisions, don't have money to waste on things like yearly xBox Live subs etc. (Thot.)

I work evenings now so that my partner can get experience during day whilst I get kids ready for school and the baby goes to the minimum amount of nursery (He's 3 and gets 15hrs a week free) to keep costs down.

Life isn't all super duper even though I earn a decent wage. We have our priorities and like I said, everything is budgeted. The child allowance was part of that budget I'll admit, along with the Working Tax Credits.

We'll survive though, we can pay the bills and buy food. The children what they ned, not what they want. We're happy with our family and don't need expensive things.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Even using national average figures, 44K isn't that much if you have a family, irrespective of location; assuming a modest 5% pension contribution your take home is 30K. Average UK mortgage is currently 900 per month (so 10.8K pa), average childcare for one child is between 640 and 800 per month (2008 figures), leaving disposable income of, at best, 1000 per month, to cover food, utilities, transport etc. And yet 44K is a high-rate taxpayer and considered "rich" by some people. Go figure...

That's per one person again isn't it?

Even so, 1k/month should be well enough for one or two kids.

Or the UK prices for utilities and transport are ridicilous

I'm not aying that 1k/month(per person) is rich or anything, but it's certainly not tightening the belt.

EDIT: What Pfy posted pretty much sums it up, you get along, have food and needed stuff(with most likely moneys for fun stuff like birthdays, xmas etc, family trips). It's no rockefeller, but it's a life that's chosen and it's enough.

 

[Raven]

and we go back to the massively inflated house prices and mortgages people can't afford.

The simple fact is the state should not be there to make your life comfortable. It should be there to help people that are hard up. "woe is me on 40k" doesn't work. There are people on less than half that who manage to afford to bring up children, I know my mum did.

I thought every parent accepted that you have to make sacrifices to have children, both on your time and financially.
Pfy seems to be the only one that understands this.

 

[cHodAX]

and we go back to the massively inflated house prices and mortgages people can't afford.

The simple fact is the state should not be there to make your life comfortable. It should be there to help people that are hard up. "woe is me on 40k" doesn't work. There are people on less than half that who manage to afford to bring up children, I know my mum did.

I thought every parent accepted that you have to make sacrifices to have children, both on your time and financially.
Pfy seems to be the only one that understands this.

Yeah, although I do sympathise with those that are borderline and it is going to effect on I still look at many of my friends who are raising kids and don't have anything close to approaching £250 a week after mortgage/rent/childcare payments.

Pfy is taking it like a man though, he isn't happy but he is at least accepting it and knows they can get by. Respect for that.

 

[Tom]

Anyone would think that having children was some kind of terrible affliction, where sufferers required urgent government aid.

Sorry but you did the messy biological stuff, nobody forced you. Don't expect sympathy.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well if nothing else, this thread has given me yet another reason to adopt then have my own

 

[DaGaffer]

That's per one person again isn't it?

Even so, 1k/month should be well enough for one or two kids.

Or the UK prices for utilities and transport are ridicilous

I'm not aying that 1k/month(per person) is rich or anything, but it's certainly not tightening the belt.

EDIT: What Pfy posted pretty much sums it up, you get along, have food and needed stuff(with most likely moneys for fun stuff like birthdays, xmas etc, family trips). It's no rockefeller, but it's a life that's chosen and it's enough.

I think the average household food bill in the UK for a family of four is about 500 a month. Everyone with a house pays council tax (100 a month?), gas, electric and telephone, another couple of hundred a month (at best, more in winter). Not much left is there? Add in some of Europe's most expensive transport costs and there's even less.

 

[Scouse]

Anyone would think that having children was some kind of terrible affliction, where sufferers required urgent government aid.

Sorry but you did the messy biological stuff, nobody forced you. Don't expect sympathy.

I find the notion of child benefit distasteful. Why should people benefit from my taxes, which should go on the poor and the needy and public services, just because they've made a choice to have kids.

If you choose to have kids then you choose to not have big foreign holidays, loads of luxury goods, gadgets, yadda yadda yadda. You've chosen to spend fuckloads on food, nappies and childcare.

If you're finding life hard 'cause of this - boo fucking hoo. Twas your choice...

 

[Pfy]

I find the notion of child benefit distasteful. Why should people benefit from my taxes, which should go on the poor and the needy and public services, just because they've made a choice to have kids.

If you choose to have kids then you choose to not have big foreign holidays, loads of luxury goods, gadgets, yadda yadda yadda. You've chosen to spend fuckloads on food, nappies and childcare.

If you're finding life hard 'cause of this - boo fucking hoo. Twas your choice...

My only gripe with the this is the implimentation whereby a family on 80k can still claim but a family on 45k cant. Personally I like the fact that this government are cutting back on wasting money and the such.

I'm not asking for sympathy, was just stating that not everyone in the higher tax bracket is rich or well off and has skiing holidays every 2nd month