To start paying back the debt we need to reduce the deficit first which is what all these cuts are about reducing.Every benefit should be means tested. A benefit should be to bring you off the poverty line not to top up your Au-pairs pay packet.
I thought even after a lot of very painful very unpopular cuts designed to shrink the national debt but it is still getting bigger?
Deebs said:To start paying back the debt we need to reduce the deficit first which is what all these cuts are about reducing.
Every benefit should be means tested. A benefit should be to bring you off the poverty line not to top up your Au-pairs pay packet.
I thought even after a lot of very painful very unpopular cuts designed to shrink the national debt but it is still getting bigger?
It's better than nothing if you're on less than the average wage. It's not meant to make life luxurious. It's meant to make it that bit easier to put food on the table for your family.The UK child allowance was barely worth it anyway (In Ireland its a different matter, its a material benefit). Having said that, the UK has a terrible child-care system that actually harms economic growth (as it reduces economic mobility).
Completely agreeMeans testing benefits ends up costing far more than means testing is worth, especially in large economies. You just end up creating yet another public sector bureaucracy. Better to use the existing setup to audit instead.
Now this one I have to disagree with you. £60k is more than double my household income and we would have *no* problems on that level of income.Anyone who thinks £60K is a lot of money is an idiot. Or living in 1957.
Absolutely agree about the stimulus. Not so sure about your analysis of the political groups.Austerity alone is not the answer to reducing the debt. Its been proven time and again that stimulus along with prudent spending is the better option (and God knows, the UK has plenty of worn-out infrastructure to fix), but public spending is anathema to the Tories and it will prove their undoing. Having said that, a Milliband-led Labour isn't exactly an enticing prospect either.
60K is more than enough to afford kids, if you can't manage on 60k then you are clearly an idiot.
One effect of removing this child benefit is that it will make the people effected less likely to have children
60K is more than enough to afford kids, if you can't manage on 60k then you are clearly an idiot.
Average mortgage in London = £1240
Average cost of childcare in London = £5668 pa per child, or £944 per month for two kids
Average Council Tax London per month £100 approx
Average Domestic Bills (water, utilities, insurances etc.) per month = £355
Net Income on 60K (with no pension) = £3451
Net = 3451-2639 = £812 per month. For clothes, oyster cards, cars, food etc. Yeah, £60K is a fortune. If you live in the cheaper parts of the UK, and if you have relatives for childcare or if you completely remove one of the potential income earners from the equation to stay at home (which penalises you on tax, see Vae's point above) then yes, 60K is OK, but in big cities? Not so much.
Stuff
sit on 60k+ and try to relate yourself to the people who earn 15k.
Stopped reading at this sentence*.
No it won't. It'll just make their lives harder. The vast majority of people who want kids will have kids.
As for people on 60 grand. What's it like £20 a week? x52 weeks? So, a grand a kid? If you're on 60 grand you won't notice it.
*read the rest now
Vae, go sit on 60k+ and try to relate yourself to the people who earn 15k. Absolute joke.
Average mortgage? That's massively skewed by the £4m house brigade. Just live at least 10 miles from central and you'll find you can live for far less. It's shit, but that's life. £60k is significantly over the national average, it's plenty to live on. You don't HAVE to live in an expensive part of London.
Your example is a single parent with two kids in London. Nice pick.
Absolutely not true. Fiscally responsible people delay. And then delay some more. Its no coincidence that the average age for a first pregnancy has gone up by a decade in the last 30 years, and that's even accounting for all the so-called gymslip mothers and the underclass etc
If you're a family of four on 60K you're on less per person than a single person on 15K. Besides, the comparison has to be to the average household income, which is 40K; comparing it someone on 15K is fatuous because most people aren't.
No, my example is a household income of 60K with two kids.