Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

to think that child benefit changes to those on over 60k is genius?

(235 Posts)
patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 08:34:41

And a bloody good idea? I mean those on under this aren't going to have sympathy and the REALLY rich and powerful? Well, it's nothing to them.

It's also really funny to hear stories of couples trying to think of ways to say they're not a family. So you're living with a man who is the father of your child but you're not a family? Riii-ght...

I think people should just forget subterfuge and suck it up. I earn 100k a year and losing it will mean nothing to me. Rather it went to feed some REALLY poor kid myself.

whensteaready Mon 05-Nov-12 08:36:44

Lucky you then

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 08:40:09

Oh yes, I am lucky, as are those on 60k a year who also should just suck it up and admit losing child benefit is nothing to them.

Ithinkitsjustme Mon 05-Nov-12 08:40:29

I'd also prefer that someone who isn't as well off got it rather than us, but I also think that the scheme is badly flawed by not using a household income. It's totally ridiculous that a family with 5 kids and a combined income of £61k may lose out (on a lot of money) whereas a family on a combined income of £119 and only 1 child may lose nothing. I don't think anyone would mind losing it on a combined income of £60k, it's the unfairness of it that sticks in the gut.

ivanapoo Mon 05-Nov-12 08:44:45

It's not genius so YABU, but its a compromise that will hopefully save some money in a way that won't hit the poor.

My partner and I earn well under 60K but our salaries combined are slightly more.

However we will have to pay extortionate childcare fees and see our child for only a few hours per working day to maintain this income. I'd much rather one of us earned our combined salary...

Tailtwister Mon 05-Nov-12 08:46:28

Good for you patsara. If it means nothing to you and you think it should go to someone more deserving, why have you been claiming it up until now?

Brycie Mon 05-Nov-12 08:46:52

We'll just be even more net contributors than we've been all our lives.

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 08:47:49

I've claimed it and put it into a charity.

YoullScreamAboutItOneDay Mon 05-Nov-12 08:48:43

It's not genius. Personally I do not mind that my family will lose the money. We can survive without it.

I do care about the impact on families with one earner living in expensive bits of the country like London. Has anything been done to address the unfairness on single parents, because a single parent on £60k in London, paying for, say, two sets of nursery fees, is not well off. Are they still promising to even that out in the single credit?

noddyholder Mon 05-Nov-12 08:49:00

My dp and I live together and have separate finances yet for tax credits we have to fill out joint form so it is possible to do it on household

Tailtwister Mon 05-Nov-12 08:49:43

Well in that case patsara, well done you!

abcdangel Mon 05-Nov-12 08:50:20

It's not genius, it's completely flawed.

A sensible option would have been to cap it at say 2 children.

Brycie Mon 05-Nov-12 08:51:39

Yes I hope they do this capping thing for future children.

Ithinkitsjustme Mon 05-Nov-12 08:56:24

Methinks this is a windup!

Savonarola Mon 05-Nov-12 09:00:13

No, it's a crap flawed proposal which will be expensive to administer, changes the fundamentals of tax policy in UK and leaves people open to a much reduced state pension. It imposes a marginal tax rate of around 60% on a 3 child family earning between £50-60k, at a time when the government is trying to argue that 50% is too high.

It also can leave families on £90k with CB intact, whilst stripping it entirely from those on £60k.

Woozley Mon 05-Nov-12 09:03:43

I don't mind in principle, certain benefits that have been universal now being means-tested, but only if it:

a) Applies fairly (which this isn't)
b) Doesn't end up costing more to administer it than the potential saving (which this will)
c) Isn't just another omnishambles from an incompetent administration (which this is)

catsmother Mon 05-Nov-12 09:10:42

The notion of clawing back from those who can most afford it is one thing but for all the reasons mentioned the way CB's been tackled is unfair. No-one could possibly claim that a total household income of £98k should keep a benefit denied to another with a total income of £60k.

However - what also seems to have been swept under the carpet is the issue of women (usually) who have no other earned income of their own, and who are in financially abusive relationships where they have to effectively beg for and jusify every last £ from their partner/husband. If said man earns more than £60k they'll have nothing come January - and in financially abusive relationships it is very very unlikely that the man is just going to hand over what she's lost. This does happen .... in my time I have read quite a few such stories on MN where women married to high earners have no financial independence at all, and were having to eke out the CB for essentials in order to avoid critcism and confrontation over money.

No doubt someone will be along to say that the state can't legislate for the comparatively few women affected in this way - but that doesn't mean this problem doesn't exist. I should imagine those women are dreading the new year - and the prospect for them and their children - who, after all, CB was supposed to help support - at going without even more because the high earner will baulk at handing over more of "his" money. I know households with incomes of £60k plus usually receive very little sympathy but it's kind of irrelevant if it's not fairly distributed for the benefit of the whole family and for such women, CB was often a little bit of a safety net and a little bit of financial independence.

Brycie Mon 05-Nov-12 09:13:49

I think women should know they should keep claiming CB in their name even if most of it is clawed back so they keep up the NI.

sweetkitty Mon 05-Nov-12 09:21:44

I think it's genius too because it sets women back years interns of individual taxation, it will cost more to administer than any savings made, it's inherently flawed, as everyone else is saying 4 DC on 60K lose it, 1DC on 99K keep it, it hits a band of middle earners already being squeezed for every penny, the savings made will not even meet the tax lost by reducing the tax rate to 45% for the richest people.

If anyone complains about it you are told to shut up its your fault for earning too much!

Yes genius all right!!!!

Jins Mon 05-Nov-12 09:30:47

It's not genius! It doesn't affect me but I can see what a flawed mechanism it is.

Allegedly it will save 1.7bn which is about the same amount as RBSs liabilities for mis-sold PPI. Building the Olympic Park cost 1.8bn just to put it into context. None of the money 'saved' will go to people who need it.

What it does is introduce the concept of means testing CB so while you may be quite happy to see people on £60k pa lose their CB will you be happy to see those on 42k lose it? 35K? 26K?

I've got plenty of sympathy for those losing their CB when their neighbours may earn twice as much and keep theirs. It's the equivalent of a fairly substantial pay cut and it will work as a huge disincentive to earn more.

Carry on OP being happy to see the better off being hit. It's very short sighted of you.

MonkeyRisotto Mon 05-Nov-12 09:40:22

I think it has a number of flaws in the way it's being implemented. My partner has a daughter (not mine) which she gets CB for. I earn over £50k so I will be taxed because of it.

My ex gets the CB for our son. She also earns over £50k so will be taxed on it.
(why should I pay extra tax because of someone else's child that I have no responsibility for?)

But also, because the maintenance I pay her is a percentage of my net income, this will decrease because I am now paying more tax.

So my ex will lose CB and get less maintenance at the same time.

Ok, so none of us will be destitute, and most families in the UK have far less money coming in than we do, but it just seems rather unfair in the way it's been implemented.

WearingGreen Mon 05-Nov-12 09:41:02

Its not genius, its ill thought out, unwieldy, costly to administer and discriminatory. It allows dual income families to benefit when they earn vastly over the threshold applied to single income families. It makes the children in the household the financial responsibility of high earners who live in the household regardless of whether that person is the child's parent or not whilst at the same time ignoring the income of non resident parents. You are deluded if you think the 'savings' from this are going to feed the poor. Its one of those dumbass, sound-bite driven policies designed to be popular with people who don't give much thought to how things actually work and will conveniently scapegoat higher earners in a pious 'if only they didn't scrounge of the state this financial crisis would never have happened' way. Ditto 'bobbies on the beat' sounds good but pulls resources away from actually solving crimes. They know that but they do it anyway because they'd rather sound like they are doing something than actually rigorously govern the country.

MonkeyRisotto Mon 05-Nov-12 09:41:42

Sorry, the bit in brackets is below the wrong paragraph... :/

abcdangel Mon 05-Nov-12 09:44:55

Brycie - how does that work?

We will lose CB due to DH's salary. I earn but not even enough to pay tax. But from what you've said can I still claim even though it will all be taken back again?

Feel really aggrieved about this, OK DH has a good job but we are far from rolling in it, and I have sacrificed my career to look after our children, so that now it's not worth me working full time because childcare costs are too high - I'd be working for next to nothing.

We know a couple who are currently both earning too much, but they are both going down to a 4 day week so they fall back under the limit and reduce their childcare costs by 40% as they will take different days off. Their household income will still be nearly £40k above us, but they will continue to receive CB.

There's a lot of apathy about the CB thing, but there's also a lot of anger.

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 09:45:56

But WearingGreen, poor people on benefits have had to have their spouse's/partner's income taken into account for years. Sorry, NO sympathy from me

irregularegular Mon 05-Nov-12 09:54:35

OK, so I agree that the whole tax/benefit system is an almighty mess and there are all sorts of flaws in the details of this change, but I want to disagree with:

'No-one could possibly claim that a total household income of £98k should keep a benefit denied to another with a total income of £60k'

Single parent families aside, I think that a household with a single earner on 60K probably is roughly as 'well off' in a broader sense as one with two earners on a combined income of 98K. It's certainly MUCH better off than one with two earners on a combined income of 60K. All those SAHMs who like to quote figures saying how large the value of their services as nanny/housekeeper/cook/cleaner/garderer/decorator etc is - well add that amount in to your household income then!!!

Most (OK, not all) partners of someone earning £60K could earn £38K themselves. Or could have done, if they hadn't already taken years out of the labour market. Yes it would have been difficult, tiring, stressful. Yes they would have needed childcare and it would be expensive. And by the time they'd paid tax and travel too, maybe it would have been hardly worthwhile. But guess what? That's what these two earner couples receiving child benefit are dealing with too! These 60K SAHMs could have worked if they had chosen to, but they preferred not to. They feel their family is better off with them not working. Better off than on a combined income of £98k. So that's why I think it's quite reasonable for them not to receive the same benefits.

Brycie Mon 05-Nov-12 09:58:04

ABC angel = if you're working you should be paying NI so it's not a problem. It's for non-workers (ha! you know what I mean) for whom claiming CB maintains their NI.

KatAndKit Mon 05-Nov-12 10:00:23

I think that there is a danger that women will stop claiming it if their family falls into the higher income bracket. If those women are not working then claiming CB is what keeps up their National Insurance, and consequently their state pension requirement. This fact does not seem to be well known - many people think it is too much bother to claim it and then get it taken away and they might as well stop claiming at all. I would urge all women, especially those who are not working in order to look after their children, to continue to claim CB and make sure the claim is in their name.

Meglet Mon 05-Nov-12 10:05:02

It's not genius. And this is coming from a single mum who earns £9k.

The administrative side will be a nightmare and it will take money off women whose husbands control the purse strings and don't let them have any money of their own.

Other things should be cut before taking money off mums / stay at home parents / children.

Savonarola Mon 05-Nov-12 10:07:30

If this was on household income, then at least the unfair threshold wouldn't apply, and independent taxation would not be undermined.

But this isn't a proposal based on household income, so pointing out that others are is a total irrelevancy.

LaCiccolina Mon 05-Nov-12 10:11:09

Smug be-atch alert eh?

For us we lose it as dh is above the bracket. I'm sahm. I was made redundant. I don't see why 2 should still get it. We struggle to keep heads above water and cope but on we go as that's what u do. I'm not badly of compared to some but we r in the squeezed middle and its extremely hard.

WearingGreen Mon 05-Nov-12 10:26:17

"But WearingGreen, poor people on benefits have had to have their spouse's/partner's income taken into account for years. Sorry, NO sympathy from me"

And also their own income, hence a household earning 98K would be entitled to less than a family earning 50K, not more.

Scholes34 Mon 05-Nov-12 10:33:30

If the cost of administering a form of means-testing minimises the money saved, why go down this route in the first place? It's resulting in an unfair system and resentment.

Jins Mon 05-Nov-12 10:34:39

For a family with two children and one 60K earner the proposals represent a 5% cut in household income.

Many can afford to manage without CB. That is exactly why the proposals have been set out this way. It's so HRT payers are made to feel bad about complaining and the majority of people think they are being greedy and have no sympathy. Don't fall for it. When the principle has been accepted the cut off points will keep dropping until nobody remembers that CB was once a universal benefit and a key part of the Welfare State

catsmother Mon 05-Nov-12 10:39:53

I'm open mouthed at the idea that "most" SAHMs "could" earn £38k themselves. Surely it's more realistic to say that "some" could.

Many SAHMs, whether they're capable of earning anything - £10k, £38k or more - are currently SAHM because ..... errrr .... there are hardly any jobs around. So to suggest that had they put themselves out a bit in the past "most" SAHMs could be earning £38k (or more I presume) is naiive ..... unless I'm looking in all the wrong places I certainly haven't noticed a plethora of vacancies offering at least £38k.

It also misses the point that many many individuals earning a LOT less than £38k have also struggled - and continue to struggle - with difficult, tiring, stressful training and employment, and childcare, and are still unable to earn anywhere near that figure despite the fact they're doing useful worthwhile jobs. After all, £38k is significantly higher than the so called average wage. So to suggest that SAHM who've "chosen" to forego that mythical £38k have, in effect, no-one but themselves to blame is just ridiculous.

I'm also not so sure a 2 adult household with 1 SAHM and 1 £60k is broadly speaking as well off as 2 adults both working with combined £98k. That's a very sweeping statement and takes no account of no of kids, or amount of childcare needed, or proximity to work. It's quite possible for example that the £98k household gets free childcare from family, or that kids are 12 plus and parents are happy to have them at home on their own, and that parents work from home or very close by meaning their expenditure is significantly reduced. But of course I accept that to hand out CB - or not - on the basis of means testing such as housing expenses, childcare, commuting costs and so on would be impossible to administer ..... but that's why, IMO, it's unfair to retain CB for combined household income where individuals earn less than £50k each but where it might, feasibly, add up to a lot more than £60k, as people's individual circumstances do vary so hugely.

And I go back to the issue of financial abuse. Just because your dad earns £60k or more doesn't automatically mean kids get everything they need. They should of course but we all know not all families are perfect. Just how difficult is it going to be for women in that situation to continue claiming CB for NI purposes if they fear their husband's reaction when invariably it's going to get clawed back out of "his" money ? How many women like that are going to be told they'll have to "eke out" what (probably paltry) housekeeping they're "allowed" because he doesn't see why he should lose out ?

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 10:50:57

Pastara the difference between 60 and 100 K is huge.I'm utterly fed up with those in the middle being lumped in with rich people over 100K.

I gave up my career when we had dc and we put everything into dp's career(including a year out for his Masters which we funded ourselves).We had 3 dc v close and childcare bills met it would have been pointless for me to work.

I have worked my entire life bar the years off with my dc and I'm now being penalised for it.

A couple on exactly the same(let alone more) pay less tax than us and with us now losing CB will be £500 a month better off than us simply because I am a SAHP.£500 a month for nothing!!!!!

A couple earning £50K each ie 100K will get to keep it too!!!!

Dp is in the unfortunate position of hovering between 50 and 60K.If he works hard he gets a bonus and will bring us up to 60K.There is now no incentive to work hard and to be frank his new job with more stress and people to manage was probably not a sensible move when you factor in the CB cut ie he might as well have stayed where he was with less stress and CB.

We live in an expensive area with a big mortgage for not a lot.We can only afford to run 1 old car and dp half kills himself cycling 16 miles a day(on top of a stressful day of work) so I can have said car. We need that CB and I'm bloody sick of rich people like the op saying because they won't even notice it those of us that are the squeezed middle should suck it up.If I was on 100 K(like many people keeping CB) I'd gladly suck it up.

I also think those wealthy pensioners with zero mortgage or dependents who have maseeeeeeve private pensions and accounts they can shuffle money around in to avoid paying tax should lose their benefits and WFA and suck it up but then the Tories tend to look after wealthy pensioners and would far rather hammer the squeezed families and kids in the middle.

irregularegular Mon 05-Nov-12 10:59:13

'Many SAHMs, whether they're capable of earning anything - £10k, £38k or more - are currently SAHM because ..... errrr .... there are hardly any jobs around. So to suggest that had they put themselves out a bit in the past "most" SAHMs could be earning £38k (or more I presume) is naiive ..... unless I'm looking in all the wrong places I certainly haven't noticed a plethora of vacancies offering at least £38k'

If you are unemployed, that is entirely different from being a SAHM. That means actively looking for working, signing on, applying for jobs...that's not what I see the stay at home spouses of 60K+ earning fathers doing.

38K is pretty normal salary for a graduate with a few years work experience. Most spouses of men earning 60K will be in that category.

Jins Mon 05-Nov-12 11:03:53

38K is not normal in my profession for a graduate with a few years work experience. 28K would be doing well.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 11:04:21

Irregular utter tosh-I'm looking and if there was work like that I'd be doing it.You forget those of us that have had a few years off aren't exactly top of the queue re work atm and anyhow graduates don't just walk into 38K,that was la la land before the recession.

Also wives/partners can't sign on because their partners are employed(and paying shed loads of tax).

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 11:05:29

Jins it wasn't normal in dp's with a Masters and a shed load of other qualifications on top.

BegoniaBampot Mon 05-Nov-12 11:06:44

We will lose it but are lucky that it's not a make or break. It's the glee and almost spite that many folk are showing against those who they see as either high earners/greedy entitled well off folk etc losing this benefit that seems off. It's creating bad feeling and turning folk against each other so maybe people won't care when other people start getting benefits taken away or cut lower down the scale.

HoneyDragon Mon 05-Nov-12 11:07:31

I think it's genius too. I for one am massively lookinging forward to the repercussions resulting in domestic violence that WILL happen, fabulous. Especially with SureStart centres closing and Womens Centres closing.

And yes all the money will be redirected to the people who need it like the poor and disabled .....oh wait, they are receiving cuts too.

Well it's still ok because it will pay of the deficit, what sorry what was that? We have to give 12 billion in foriegn aid first? Oh ok.

Ach, well as long as YOU are happy op. Someone fucking should be. Most of us, however, aren't.

maddening Mon 05-Nov-12 11:11:05

I think it is fair if you take in to account the fact that both parents in work have childcare to consider - for under 5's it's £5-10k a year per child - so yes a family with 2 children where both earn £30k so combined income of £60K could have £10-20k coming out - so £50- £40k is left after childcare which is a lot less.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 11:11:21

Oooo and let's not forget the bill of administering this utterly unfair farce and the money lost from the system to the rich families who can afford to just up their pension contributions in order to save themselves from losing CB.hmm

Those of us that need it are losing it for nothing.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 11:13:39

Maddening not all have childcare,many are part time and are creative/have flexitime/friends etc.Older dc in secondary don't need childcare.

I have several friends and family with both parents working,none with school age children have childcare bills.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 11:14:43

With under school age children many of my friends now do CMing swaps ie they look after each others dc on opposite days.

HoneyDragon Mon 05-Nov-12 11:15:25

Well yes. The richer you are the more tax breaks you should get. When you are obscenely rich you should of course pay as little tax as possible.

People who only just scrape the 40% tax bracket however should be bent over and rogered until every last penny has fallen out their pockets. They deserve it the bastards.

It's only fair.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 11:16:25

Or use grandparents.

Also couples with 2 parents working will both have pensions.A couple with just one working and a SAHP should really be paying for the second pension out of the 1 income which is another reduction on top of paying more tax and losing CB.

bumbdeal Mon 05-Nov-12 11:17:00

I agree it would be genius if families on over £60,000 lost it but some families on way more than that will get to keep it.
That is Stupid and not fair!

Jins Mon 05-Nov-12 11:18:58

I think that salary sacrifice for spousal pensions will be investigated. Not sure it's possible.

Dahlen Mon 05-Nov-12 11:22:44

Average graduate salary has decreased markedly over the last 10 years for both genders. It is now estimated at about £20-24,000 - so less than the national average. Yes, experience leads to big increases, but only in you manage to get a graduate-entry-level job, and very many graduates are not. The proportion of graduates working in roles that neither utilise nor require their level of qualification, is staggering.

75% of the population overall earn less than £32,000. Earning £44,000 puts you in the top 10% of earners. Very few people fullstop earn more than £38,000, so to say most graduate-level SAHMs could is bizarre to say the least. Most female graduates, even those without Hs or DC, will not earn anywhere near that amount.

However, I'd agree with you that due the nature of social mobility in this country, the chances are indeed quite likely that the wife of a man earning £60,000 or more would be much more likely than most other female graduates to earn this sort of her figure herself had she not given up paid employment in favour of being a SAHM.

My main concern is that anything that removes independence and support from a mother and leaves her completely reliant on her partner, is a sad day for women's rights.

Why no one has ever done more to remove the discrepancy between taxation on an individual basis and benefits on a household basis is beyond me. Make it all one or the other and have it all under one roof and you could scrap means testing and a huge amount of fraud in one fell swoop.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 11:31:41

Also lets not forget the higher level of tax those on 32K pay or the TC and other benefits others get on less than 32K on top of the less tax couples pay if both earning.

50K if earned by 1 person is not a fortune particularly if you live in an expensive area and have high travel costs.

catsmother Mon 05-Nov-12 11:35:07

"38K is pretty normal salary for a graduate with a few years work experience. Most spouses of men earning 60K will be in that category."

Wow. Just wow.

Are you really suggesting that men who earn at least £60k deliberately seek out and choose graduates as their partners ? ...... and in particular graduates who earn £38k or more ?

Rubbish.

Notwithstanding the fact that as has been pointed out by several other posters many graduates have to settle for a lot lot less - if they're lucky enough to have a job. This is in part due to it being an employer's market right now and arguably, the devaluation of degrees in the last few years, but it is also true that having a degree, even a very good one, is not an automatic guarantee of a high income. It all depends - on the degree, on the availability of work, on your particular sector and so on.

Consider for a moment that some SAHMs who may appear to have chosen to remain at home do in fact have little real choice in the matter if they are not capable of earning enough to cover childcare and commuting costs. Depending on how many kids, how old they are and how far you have to travel to where the work is (and you can't move any closer because housing costs get more expensive) even a seemingly reasonable-ish salary can be completely wiped out.

irregularegular Mon 05-Nov-12 11:46:33

As you wish. Maybe my corner of the world looks very different from everyone else's. But as I mentally look around me, I cannot think of a single mother of my generation, married to a man earning over 60K, who wasn't basically on the same path as him before they had children and couldn't have continued on that path had she chosen to.

Actually, I think it's a tricky one. Is it fairer to calculate benefits based on individual or household income? The 'right' answer is a) probably somewhere inbetween and b)hugely dependent on many other factors.

irregularegular Mon 05-Nov-12 11:48:14

'Depending on how many kids, how old they are and how far you have to travel to where the work is (and you can't move any closer because housing costs get more expensive) even a seemingly reasonable-ish salary can be completely wiped out.'

Exactly my point!!! That's why a two earner household on 98K is not so different from a single earner household on a lot less.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 11:52:00

8if8 they pay childcare.If they don't they're laughing!

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 11:52:21

if

reallyboredatwork Mon 05-Nov-12 11:57:06

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

tethersend Mon 05-Nov-12 11:57:37

Im constantly amused by the idea that money taken from claimants will go to other as-yet-unspecified more 'needy' people.

Does anyone really believe this?

PosieParker Mon 05-Nov-12 11:58:43

Jesus Christ.

Not another one.

RarelyUnreasonable Mon 05-Nov-12 11:58:50

A more genius approach - as so many others have said - would be a household income cap, rather than a single earner cap.

Is it NI class 2 or 4 contributions that cb pays? Am self-employed, sometime sahm, sometime wahm and am confused!

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 11:59:11

I agree really and lets face it anybody on 100K joint is loaded childcare or no childcare which beggars the question-exactly why are they keeping CB when others on a lot less aren't?

PosieParker Mon 05-Nov-12 11:59:35

Tethers. Naive beyond belief.

Most of the people that suffer the cuts will NOT benefit by the deficit being paid off.

kilmuir Mon 05-Nov-12 12:00:44

Brilliant post reallyboredatwork

Mintyy Mon 05-Nov-12 12:01:44

You should be banned for goading op.

PosieParker Mon 05-Nov-12 12:02:30

Changes to CB will means an extra £1.7 billion

Stopping corporate tax avoidance £25 billion.

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 12:05:11

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 12:08:35

60K is a whole world away from 100K as has already been said time and again.

HoneyDragon Mon 05-Nov-12 12:08:50

Well if we're calling people dumb bints you should have said earlier, saved an awful lot of people patiently and eloquenlty pointing out why you're op was a bit needlessly dim grin

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 12:10:11

Oh and I hate the expression "hubby" <boak>.I don't have a "hubby" I have a partner and we're not rich,unlike you obviously as we will really feel it when it's gone and are not on 100K(dual or single income).

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 12:10:18

Dim? ANYBODY with a household income of 60k or more should NOT get child benefit. One of the few sensible things this government has done.

PosieParker Mon 05-Nov-12 12:10:26

Rich? Rich at £60k, really? Are you having a laugh?

We have four children and we could not survive on £60k and eat and be warm.

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 12:14:09

Not rich, well-off is more apt.

Jins Mon 05-Nov-12 12:14:35

Nice OP hmm

I can see why the squeezed middle are squeezed now. People on lower incomes think that they are rich beyond belief and can see no reason why they should keep CB and now people on nearly twice what they bring in gloating because they are going to lose it and notice.

Really nice.

It's like someone on 20k gloating that someone on 12k is going to suffer more than they are.

As I've said many times I'm not affected by these proposals but from the examples of sheer nastiness aimed at the people who are on MN and elsewhere I'm shocked by how easily the Government has got people on board with this

mluddy Mon 05-Nov-12 12:14:47

38K is pretty normal salary for a graduate with a few years work experience. Most spouses of men earning 60K will be in that category.

This is so not true.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 12:15:04

Hardly!

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 12:16:32

Shocked, Jins? Seriously that is funny! See the vast majority of people in this country do NOT earn 60k per household and the REALLY rich and powerful don't care.

PosieParker Mon 05-Nov-12 12:16:59

Well I will lose £240 a month, I am not happy. We are well above the limit but £240 is £240, I'm guessing I couold budget better but why should I when the likes of Gary Barlow pays fuck all tax?

Perhaps I should set myself up as a brand and have my office in Luxembourg, I'll buy my groceries and pay myself out of that office.

Jins Mon 05-Nov-12 12:18:23

It would seem so. Short sighted and stupid

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 12:22:24

It's neither short-sighted or stupid. There's nothing you can do, Jins as the really rich don't care and, even if they did, they still get it if both partners earn a packet.

Wow you're lovely op. hmm
My DH earns just 60k if you include his bonus and we have a hefty mortgage, 5 dc and I'm at uni.
We get no help other than cb. I have friends at uni getting free childcare, free laptops, bloody grants. Some days I can't afford the petrol to get in.

For various reasons including bereavement we have debts which mean our outgoings are huge.
We only have 1 battered car and shop smart price. I use my CB for dinner money, bus fares for dc, toddler groups etc...

When we lose it I am fecked big style.

10 years ago when DH was a graduate earning 15k yes I would have agreed with you. But now I realise its not as much as you might think.

Jins Mon 05-Nov-12 12:23:54

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Viviennemary Mon 05-Nov-12 12:24:41

It doesn't affect me. However, it wasn't in their manifesto I don't think. There's a surprise. Wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if their was a rethink.

PosieParker Mon 05-Nov-12 12:24:51

The really rich are not affected at all.

RubyGates Mon 05-Nov-12 12:24:59

" *As you wish. Maybe my corner of the world looks very different from everyone else's. But as I mentally look around me, I cannot think of a single mother of my generation, married to a man earning over 60K, who wasn't basically on the same path as him before they had children and couldn't have continued on that path had she chosen to. *"

My OH earns 60k (now after 4 years of no income at all) and I have never earned (or indeed wanted to earn, because of the nature of my work) more than 24K. I think I'm on about 17k now (part time plus some OT so not easy to estimate) but What our earning potential was/is has absolutely no bearing on our decision to be in a relationship.

Why would it have? How very odd.

sweetkitty Mon 05-Nov-12 12:26:41

I think that's another level of unfairness, number of DC, six or seven people living off 60K is different to 3 people living off 60K. But then again if those 4 or 5 children then go on to become tax payers they will contribute more back than one child.

And also OP what if the SAHM cannot work as she is an unpaid carer for a disabled child? Maybe they should just put the child in an institution so the woman can work?

ihategeorgeosborne Mon 05-Nov-12 12:30:59

I'm dreading losing this money TBH. DH earns just under 60k and we have 3 dc. I am a SAHM as youngest is only a baby. It is my only income. DH doesn't give me any money, not because he is a tight arse, but because there is nothing left to give after bills are paid. We rent a tiny house as we can't afford to buy in our area. I am so fed up of being told we're loaded and to cut out the second home and car. If only!!!!!!! This government have certainly done a great job of making me feel inadequate and worthless.

Totally agree sk.
And everyone has been led to believe universal cb is always going to be there. So I have come to rely upon it. Maybe I shouldn't have but I did.

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 12:35:40

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

ihategeorgeosborne Mon 05-Nov-12 12:38:07

patsara, really? You don't sound like you've got one TBH.

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 12:38:42

By the way, this is what poverty in the UK looks like. Note: it does not mean being unable to buy wine and/or rent a gites.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/17/charity-food-banks-record-numbers

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 12:39:17

I do actually, george, just not for people like you.

catsmother Mon 05-Nov-12 12:39:46

"Dim? ANYBODY with a household income of 60k or more should NOT get child benefit. One of the few sensible things this government has done."

Yes Pastara, dim. A dim policy and you have a dim interpretation of it.

BECAUSE - the policy as it stands does NOT mean that "anybody" with a household income of £60k loses child benefit. If you're talking household income then a significant number of households with a combined income of much much more than £60k will still get it.

Which is arse about face. And unfair.

And which, as described by you, is not what this government has done.

As Posie has pointed out the amount saved by this policy - nevermind the ill feeling it's creating - is a drop in the ocean compared to corporate tax avoidance. Sorting that out would be what I'd call sensible.

ihategeorgeosborne Mon 05-Nov-12 12:41:26

Rent a gite??? What bloody planet are you on?

sweetkitty Mon 05-Nov-12 12:41:47

God forbid you go out tomorrow patsara and get run over and are unable to work ever again. Or get cancer or one of your DCs get cancer and you are at their bedside for months or years so are unable to work or have a disabled child yourself.

None of us know what will happen to us in the future but we should know that there is a safety net there for all of us should the worst happen.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 12:42:28

Who buys wine and rents gites????hmm

JuliaScurr Mon 05-Nov-12 12:45:09

our Welfare State and NHS were divised to acknowledge that we operate as a social group, not compete as individuals. cb transferred money from wallet to purse - financial abuse is often the start of domestic violence
the benefit/tax - individual/household is a problem
in general, benefits should be universal, not just a desperate ghetto
get it back in tax for the rich - more efficient and fairer

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 12:47:26

Eh, sweetkitty, what part of only affecting those on OVER 60k are you not getting? If you ever earn UNDER that amount, you'll get it.

reallyboredatwork Mon 05-Nov-12 12:47:28

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

atacareercrossroads Mon 05-Nov-12 12:48:13

mmmm , going off where I live, £60k is a very very VERY comfortable earning for cost of living, mortgage etc so for me personally YANBU in a tiny aspect. I admit I do find it hard to get my violin out when people earning this sort of money moan about it. But as I say, this is where I live, I do appreciate in London etc £60k doesnt go very far once bills have been paid.

i dont see how you can take the moral high ground though if you claimed it, even if you did give it to charity cough bollox cough cough. Perhaps if everyone who didnt need it didnt claim it then we might not all being squeezed as much as we are now.

sweetkitty Mon 05-Nov-12 12:49:43

A far fairer system would be to make CB universal but cap it at 2 children and stop it when the youngest child turns 12.

My DP is PAYE so he's going to have to fill out a self assessment, money spent sending these out, money spent validating the replies, money spent relighting his tax code, money spent rectifying theists keys and chasing up non responders. Oh and by law I do not have to inform him I receive CB and he does not have to inform me of his salary as we are taxed as individuals, oh but for this purpose the government have bent that rule. Nevermind the very obvious household income issue.

Iggly Mon 05-Nov-12 12:49:53

YABU

Genius because a family where two individuals earn less than 50k individually but more than 60k combined still get CB? Yes that's really clever.

It amounts to about a 4% loss of post tax income.

Universal benefits are a good thing IMO. Cheap to administer too. The new system - you may have noticed by the lack of announcements on money saved - will be more costly.

ihategeorgeosborne Mon 05-Nov-12 12:50:03

reallyboredatwork, couldn't have put it better myself grin

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 12:50:16

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

sweetkitty Mon 05-Nov-12 12:52:51

Eh patsara, between 50-60K you lose it on a sliding scale, I don't know the exact figure but if your on about 58K chances are you won't be getting a lot.

If you've got 2 or more DC chances are any pay rise will be getting offset by a reduction in CB.

MrsTittleMouse Mon 05-Nov-12 12:52:52

I think it's genius - first it's called Child Benefit instead of Family Allowance, meaning that it can be lumped in with "benefits" as in "they live off benefits" (which government did this?). Then despite promising during the election that they wouldn't touch it, the Conservatives remove it from higher rate tax payers. The really rich (like the OP and above) don't need it, so they don't care. And anyone who earns below the higher rate threshold thinks that anyone above it is extremely rich, and so they don't care either.

Then, and this is the genius bit, you can stealthily reduce the level at which it's paid. Because you're only going to affect one small part of the population at a time, hardly anyone will complain. Those who earn less with think that people losing it earn lots, so what's the complain about. Those who earn more will have lost it already, so won't notice.

Eventually, it will only be paid to people who are living off benefits, and then it can be portrayed as something that it only used by "benefit scroungers" and either left to wither under inflation, or get scrapped entirely. And a universal payment that has had all the benefits listed below has gone forever.

Otherwise, why bother? It's going to cost a fortune for all the admin that these changes are going to cost, so it's just not worth it financially for the government as it stands.

atacareercrossroads Mon 05-Nov-12 12:53:33

me thinks someone doesnt actually earn 100K and is a bit jel of SAHMs

Chin up OP smile you get used to it.

tethersend Mon 05-Nov-12 12:54:17

Patsara, you do seem cross. Are you ok?

It's just a discussion, you know.

Viviennemary Mon 05-Nov-12 12:55:44

Would it have been better to set the maximum at a bit higher, say £80,000 per year. And also I think in future maybe it should be capped at two children but a more generous allowance per child.

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 12:56:33

Jealous of SAHM's? Never. They are spoilt women who do nothing all day. I'm actually pleased that if both parents earn 60k or more each they keep it.

HoneyDragon Mon 05-Nov-12 12:57:37

Op = Newbie and or NameChanger Check
Op = Writes deliberately goady post Check
Op = Then uses post as excuse to make PA on other posters Check
Oh Dear

Conclusion = hmm

Brycie Mon 05-Nov-12 12:58:15

How can you possibly be up for an argument before lunchtime patsara? Because you know you'll be jumped on. Go and get something to eat and you'll feel better. Protein.

ihategeorgeosborne Mon 05-Nov-12 12:58:17

patsara, you sound really bitter.

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 12:58:43

I should add that BOTH parents on 60k apiece are actually contributing TAX for the benefit of society.

tethersend Mon 05-Nov-12 12:59:14

We're here to listen, patsara.

Let it out.

Viviennemary Mon 05-Nov-12 13:00:34

If people are a bit bitter it's no wonder. Some people are barely scraping by on minimum wage having to listen to people on £50,000 a a year whining about losing benefit. It doesn't surprise me people would get cross about this.

Iggly Mon 05-Nov-12 13:00:42

So you're only worth anything if you contribute tax?

Are children worthless then?

The elderly now worthless?

Raising our future generation is no small task to be sneered at. Sitting behind a desk all day is not, in my opinion, more worthwhile than raising a child.

Fuck me OP you're an idiot of a troll.

reallyboredatwork Mon 05-Nov-12 13:01:05

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 13:01:24

Viv that's what I thought.

Oh and I've hardly been sat on my arse these years. I've worked all my working life and have never claimed anything bar CB.I have simply had a few years off when I had my dc.

I have earned dp's glowing CV as I have supported him at various times financially and as a partner.We thought we were doing the right thing by focusing on his career and not running 2 into the ground when we had 3 babies in 1 year.

Bitterly regretting it now-so shoot me!hmm

Brycie Mon 05-Nov-12 13:03:37

Iggly nobody said people who don't pay tax are worthless. Anyway very many elderly people do pay tax until they take their last breath, and then afterwards too.

Brycie Mon 05-Nov-12 13:04:41

I'd like to keep all my child benefit. It's a way of recognising the fact we're net contributors and the welfare system is for all children.

Ithinkitsjustme Mon 05-Nov-12 13:04:49

To those concerned that your partners earn just over £60k on a good year but not always, he can pay more into a pension fund and you still get to claim cb. Morally dubious in my book but with such a stupid system every little helps grin. (It also means that you would probably be slightly worse off per month now, but better off in the future. Look into it.

OwlLady Mon 05-Nov-12 13:05:35

do you really think someone earning 60k is REALLY rich and powerful? confused

Brycie Mon 05-Nov-12 13:05:49

No point paying more into a pension - they'll have it all off you anyway grin

catsmother Mon 05-Nov-12 13:05:53

I'm being to think I've dropped into a parallel universe here.

Pastara, if both parents each earn £60k or more they do NOT keep CB - if that's what you mean by keeping "it".

As for being "spoilt women who do nothing all day" .... well, I'm not going to waste my time responding in any depth to that. There are always exceptions to every rule but that doesn't apply to the vast majority of SAHMs.

atacareercrossroads Mon 05-Nov-12 13:05:58

yea, you're jealous grin

FWIW I am too a little bit, Id love to be able to afford to stay at home. Save your anger though for situation and the cost of living that means you cant afford to do it though. No point in being bitter towards those that can afford it, good luck to them I say smile

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 13:07:31

Ithink I'd love to(although it would be dp's pension not mine)but can't afford it.We fluctuate between 50 and 60.We need the money now.Only the rich will be able to do this-you know those on 100K dual or single income.angry

Yet more money wasted from this utterly unfair and ludicrous scheme.

OwlLady Mon 05-Nov-12 13:07:49

I disagree catsmother, I spend my days sunbathing and eating cakes from waitrose

tethersend Mon 05-Nov-12 13:08:07

patsara, Rod Stewart's on Loose Women at the moment. That might cheer you up smile

ihategeorgeosborne Mon 05-Nov-12 13:08:14

Prarieflower, I'm feeling the same as you. DH's career has really taken off since I've been a SAHM, as he has had me around to do everything and not worry about getting home to pick dc up, etc. In the meantime, as much as I adore my dc, I've really lost my confidence and wouldn't know where to start now. I think I'm regretting it too now TBH hmm

sweetkitty Mon 05-Nov-12 13:08:31

Couple 1 DH salary of 61K DW SAHM 5 DC loses CB

Couple 2 DH salary of 100k DW SAHM DH is self employed, has DW as an "employee" pays her a wage keeps it

Single parent 1 - on 61K loses it

Couple 3 - DH on 45K DW on 40K keep it

Couple 4 - DH on 60K DW on 20K lose it

The last 2 examples show why it is grossly unfair.

irregularegular Mon 05-Nov-12 13:08:46

OK then - let's do a mini survey. Only SAHMs with partners earning 60 -100K need reply. Or those who are very good at putting themselves in that position.

Imagine you're offered a job in a similar line to whatever employment you had before children. Full-time (none of this 'school hours only' stuff) but nothing excessive. 9-5 kind of thing. It may not be super local, but the commute isn't outrageous either. Definitely less than an hour each way.

So, how much would this job have to pay gross for you to want to take it? Because that's how much your being at home is worth to you - and the amount you need to add to your partner's salary to make a fair comparison with a dual earner household.

By the way - I do think that child benefit to two earner households should be withdrawn before 100K. I just don't think it should be the same as a one earner household.

abcdangel Mon 05-Nov-12 13:11:06

1 person in the household earning £60k does not mean you're rich.

2 people earning £49,000k each with 2 lots of personal allowance makes you better off than 1 person earning £98k AND you still get your CB.

The issue shouldn't be about who deserves CB or not, but about the unbelievable stupidity of the unfair way in which this change is being applied.

And for the record OP I am astounded that anyone would pay you £100k - you come across as a very angry and unpleasant individual with no social skills.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 13:11:14

Atacareer many can't afford to stay at home.Many do it because their career is shot to pieces,there is buggar all work out there or because of other reasons.I doubt many do it for the hell of it, you get hammered re tax if you do and fuck all career when the dc leave home. <panics>

OwlLady Mon 05-Nov-12 13:11:38

it depends whether I could go shopping all day really irregular and whether it would permit having my nails done and my hair highlighted

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 13:11:46

Add no pension to the list.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 13:12:50

ABc I agree-op doesn't sound very bright to be honest.Op what on earth do you do,I'm dying to know?

GreenShadow Mon 05-Nov-12 13:13:56

I'm with Patsara on this.

Why should everyone get it.

£60000 may not be a fortune, but it is enough. Most of those earning that do not need the benefit - it is nice, it is useful, it may pay for extras, but very few need it. (I do appreciate people like ihategeorgeosbourne up thread do rely on it, but most should not have to). May be more notice should have been given so people had more time to come to terms with it.

I do however, totally agree that it is unfair that couples both earning £49 can keep it whereas those of us where one partner earns just over the limit can't. That has potential to cause an awful lot of resentment.

We will miss it, but only because we have been lucky enough to have been given it in the first place. We will survive, whereas those on really low incomes may actually need it to survive....

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 13:14:11

Ihate Karma feels the same-we should set up a screwed and up shit creek SAHM club.sad

Ithinkitsjustme Mon 05-Nov-12 13:14:55

I'm in the position of having a partner earning £60 on the one year that the figures will be taken from angry but I work in a supermarket, part-time for £7/ hour. As I have next to no qualifications I wouldn't be able to earn £38k a year or anything like it. With 5 children I stand to lose a lot of money. Does it bother me? Yes, a bit, it works out at approx 10% of our income. Would I mind if it was being given to someone who had less than we do, no I wouldn't (but it won't). Would I bat an eyelid if everyone was going to be in the same boat? No, but it annoys me that people who are earning far more as a 2 parent household will still be able to claim.

PosieParker Mon 05-Nov-12 13:16:20

SAHMs are spoilt women?

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

What about:
Those women whose husbands don't allow them to work?
Those women who are caring for disabled or elderly relatives?
Those women who cannot afford to work because the childcare outweighs the benefit?
Those women who care for young children who can afford not to work?
Those women who volunteer?

WilsonFrickett Mon 05-Nov-12 13:17:20

The changes are unfair as many pp have said.

In larger families CB does often make the difference, it's not just about what's coming in but what's going out.

SAHMs aren't lazy FFS and crowing about a group of the population being hit in the pocket because of perceived characteristics is stupid. You are making yourself sound stupid OP.

And saying 'I'd rather it would go to a poor kid' - to be fair, I'd rather my CB did go to someone in greater need than me, but it won't. It won't be ring-fenced at all and will go on some other shit.

reallyboredatwork Mon 05-Nov-12 13:17:26

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

OwlLady Mon 05-Nov-12 13:18:44

we are the same ithinkitsjustme but I have recently given up my job in the supermarket because I could no longer cope with doing that and looking after my daughter who has severe disabilities as her care package has been cut so much, something which is illegal but even my MP seems unconcerned about - so what's to do? afterall we all sit around, shopping and pampering all day so what does it matter. We are super wealthy and rich

PosieParker Mon 05-Nov-12 13:19:11

How have the Tories managed to convince people that a Universal benefit is a lucky thing????

How is it that all of you are more worried about Janet down the road getting an extra £3000 a year for her three children, on top of her £60k income, as opposed to massive tax avoidance.

It's a bit shit, no?

Brycie Mon 05-Nov-12 13:19:42

People are so mean to each other. As long as you don't have children expecting others to pay for them, or for you to stay at home, why shouldn't you do what they want? Stay at home, go to work, why do people get cross with the "other side"?

irregularegular Mon 05-Nov-12 13:20:17

Ithinkitsjustme - I'm sure whether your partner has to pay the CB back in a given year will depend on how much he earns in that same year, not in some arbitrary year.

firemansamisnormansdad Mon 05-Nov-12 13:24:33

Dear OP. I know a SAHM whose DH earns £60k. Even so, they still scrimp and save, go without 2 cars, sky etc to make sure their children have enriching lives. She cannot work now anyway as one of her children has terminal cancer which is beyond heartbreaking and would destroy a lesser family. So now this family will also be penalised and will suffer financially. Those 50mile each way hospital trips aren't cheap you know. It isn't funny, you are not being clever. i wish you had never started this thread.

Iggly Mon 05-Nov-12 13:25:25

Brycie, that post was to the OP who seemed to indicate that SAHMs were useless and it was fine for household earning over £60k to keep the benefit vs one worker households who can't because "at least both parents were contributing".

Brycie Mon 05-Nov-12 13:26:18

Ok.

sweetkitty Mon 05-Nov-12 13:28:39

I think the OP is on nowhere near what she says, she's come on here because she thinks it's full of ladies who lunch SAHMs who apparently sit in their arses all day and wants to create a stir.

abcdangel Mon 05-Nov-12 13:28:43

@ really bored - I actually reckon she's a civil servant - earning a lovely salary thanks very much, with a final salary pension scheme paid for by us suckers who work in the private sector.

irregularegular Mon 05-Nov-12 13:32:32

Firemansam, I am very sorry to hear about your friend. Any situation where a child has cancer is obviously tragic and heartbreaking beyond words.

However... 'they still scrimp and save, go without 2 cars, sky etc'. Seriously??? Sorry, but that just about sums it all up to me.

Here's me thinking we have a very comfortable life. But no, we only have one (12 yr old) car and Freeview so we are obviously on the poverty line.

Ithinkitsjustme Mon 05-Nov-12 13:33:35

I think the OP is exactly what her name says bored at work, and enjoying a big wind up. I do think the discussion is worth having though as many people are concerned about how they will manage large morgage payments when they lose several hundred pounds a month. It's one thing never to have had that money but when you have budgeted for it and been given loans/ mortgages on teh basis of it then it changes things quite dramatically.

Ithinkitsjustme Mon 05-Nov-12 13:34:22

Sorry, got the OP's name muddle up, but I still think that's what she's doing blush

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 13:34:43

Yes remortgaging will be harder for many.

Dahlen Mon 05-Nov-12 13:38:56

I think this will hit a lot of blended families and contribute to relationship breakdown and the already happening increase in people living alone.

For example, what about a woman with children from a previous relationship, who works full time and earns enough not to claim any other benefits but not enough to cope without CB. Her DP earns £60,000 and they are discussing moving in together. Yes their combined income should mean they are able to cope with the loss of BCB, but both of them may have issues with it that result in them choosing not to - at least for a few years until say her DC are old enough for her earnings to compensate for the loss.

It could easily become a flashpoint of resentment - on both sides. He's paying for someone else's children and she's sacrificed her children's income and her independence.

It is totally counterproductive to the Coalition's claims to prioritise families.

Notmadeofrib Mon 05-Nov-12 13:42:10

I shall miss mine as the 'free' money was always nice. Frankly it means I might have to down grade my vino choice or ski in a slightly less nice resort... a bit of a bummer, but not really what the benefit system is designed for.

Brycie Mon 05-Nov-12 13:43:34

It's being used for a lot of things it wasn't designed for. I'd like to keep this one.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 13:47:41

"down grade vino and ski resort"<sigh>hmm

abcdangel Mon 05-Nov-12 13:48:06

Ditto Brycie. What you spend it on is down to personal choice, but I imagine we've all cut our cloth according to what's coming in. You're going to NOTICE it's not there, no matter what it's used for.

patsara Mon 05-Nov-12 13:48:54

Dahlen this has been happening to poor women for years. Before I struck lucky and earnt good money using a specific talent, I lived with a man while fresh out of uni; he was a graduate too but this was back in the 80s when jobs were scarce. He earned minimum wage in a supermarket. Because HE earned I could not claim any money at all. He earned a fraction of 60k-we could not afford to eat some days.

I may be OK now, but I will never forget my anger at this.

THAT was unjustified; denying CB to those on 60k or more is NOT. If he earned 60k I would NOT have complained at all!!

Just goes to show the sense of entitlement that some people have. And I bet these are the sort of people who hate 'welfare scum', too.

firemansamisnormansdad Mon 05-Nov-12 13:49:08

Maybe I didn't word it right as it's rude to pry into her exact financial status. However, even on your comfortable lifestyle irregular can you stillsqueeze in 3 trips a week plus childcare costs for her other kids who can't go to the isolation unit at the hospital?

Notmadeofrib Mon 05-Nov-12 13:50:41

when the living wage is £7.20 an hour anyone £60k is making lifestyle choices.

Prarieflower that's my point, it's ridiculous for everyone to get this benefit. We as a family don't NEED it, but yeah I'm not mad, I LIKE it. I will notice when it's gone, but not because we won't eat!

sweetkitty Mon 05-Nov-12 13:54:09

But it's not a benefit as such, it's a tax allowance in respect of the fact having children is costly. The people this is affecting aren't the dole scroungers the government want us all to hate but hard working people already paying 15K a year in tax. They might have student loans, a huge mortgage because in order to earn that money they have had to relocate, commuting costs, childcare costs etc.

A phased reduction would have been fairer as well, for a lot of people it's a 4-5K gross reduction in salary.

As someone else said this is just the start, the level at which it stops will be whittled down until its only the dole scroungers who get it, then it will be incorporated into the universal credit and lost forever.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 13:57:53

Notmade you're talking Tosh-it's not about lifestyle choices for many.For many there is no more scrimping to be done.Ski-ing don't make me laugh!!!!

reallyboredatwork Mon 05-Nov-12 13:59:26

Omg omg omg, so pats you have a "specific talent." and do you have "clients" too? LOL LOL LOL I can't type I'm laughing so much!

WilsonFrickett Mon 05-Nov-12 14:03:27

he was a graduate too but this was back in the 80s when jobs were scarce

Unlike now, when jobs are growing on trees and you quite literally cannot walk through a wooded glade without being hit on the head with a job?

Dahlen Mon 05-Nov-12 14:05:32

patsara - I don't think it's a sense of entitlement to not want your partner to have to pay for your children that are from another relationship.

While it's one thing to pool money into a family pot and expect a father to support his partner and children as a household, it's quite different for blended families where there are often arrangements outside the household unit that have a significant bearing (e.g. the new man may have children from a previous relationship himself who is he rightly paying maintenance for).

No way would I be happy relying on a man who wasn't the father of my DC to pay for those children. I would feel beholden in a way I simply wouldn't as a SAHM to children who were fathered by the man I was living with and who thus had equal responsibility for them.

And if said man was in any way, shape or form abusive (and let's bear in mind that they don't show their colours to start with), this would be a great stick to beat his partner with.

ihategeorgeosborne Mon 05-Nov-12 14:05:37

It seems to have been all dh and I have talked about for the past two years. I had hoped the government would make it fairer, but clearly that won't happen now. I really don't know where we'll find an extra £200 a month though and time is running out sad. Current rent and bills take us up to the limit, not to mention dh's commuter costs which are increasing again in January. I used CB for dc's shoes, clothes, school trips (which seem to be never ending and getting more expensive). I have been trying to work out how we can cut down on food, but we already try and shop as cheaply as we can. We also have one 11 year old car, which is becoming a liability TBH. Holidays are something we dream about having one day hmm. Why do people assume that if you earn 60k you own multiple houses, holiday 3 times a year in your own gite and dine out every day? Where am I going wrong? Perhaps dh is on the wrong tax code or something? (clutches at many straws)!

OwlLady Mon 05-Nov-12 14:08:47

I think the point about blended families is really important as well. Luckily we are no longer supporting my stepdaughter financially as she is an adult or we would have really struggled so it does work all ways but someone at some point will suggest that people don't have more children with someone else if they cannot support the family they already have, which is what usually happens

Notmadeofrib Mon 05-Nov-12 14:12:31

Prarieflower I was talking about my situation, not yours. We don't need it, but we get it. Taking it away is right in my opinion.

However, think about it - £7.20 an hour is a living wage ! ! ! WTF! Seriously £7.20. £50k means someone earns over £24 an hour. If you don't feel well of, well it's all relative and if you earned less you'd manage on less.

WilsonFrickett Mon 05-Nov-12 14:13:55

My DSD's mother claimed child benefit for her, of course, as was her right, but my DP paid for everything else - mortgage, utilities, food, the works. We won't be eligible for CB now. It does seem strange that he could wholly support a child (and have CB claimed for that child) yet the child that he jointly has and supports with me can't have CB. Essentially it's two children coming out of the one income, iyswim. Again, it's the fact that the changes are unfair that bugs me, not the fact that we won't be eligible for CB.

naturalbaby Mon 05-Nov-12 14:21:11

Genius? How is it genius to give CB to families with a joint income of well over £60k and take it away from families with 1 income of £60k?

I don't hate 'welfare scum', I am not impressed that families earning almost double our household income are still claiming CB and we can't.

sweetkitty Mon 05-Nov-12 14:25:12

40K & 40K = keep all CB
60K & 20K = lose it

Regardless of whether a family on 80K needs it in the first case, it's so unfair that one family keeps it and one loses it just on what one person earns.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 14:25:55

Err notmade those on minimum wage in many cases won't be taxed ,will have benefits and top ups such as TC.

Somebody on a higher wage may also have hugely bigger living expenses and costs.At the end of the day it's money left in the pocket that counts and for a lot of people in the middle on 1 salary that is zero.

Notmadeofrib Mon 05-Nov-12 14:34:19

Prarieflower £7.20 is not the minimum wage (believe it or not, THAT is even less). I appreciate your point, I really do.

But Somebody on a higher wage may also have hugely bigger living expenses and costs that's my point. Lifestyle choices. You may not like it but that's what they are!

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 14:37:55

Err no they're not when you have to live in a certain area and pay £££££ for not a lot,pay ££££££ for travel to work etc.When you don't have holidays,phones or Sky such as the poster below has outlined what are the choices??Do tell!

Asinine Mon 05-Nov-12 14:38:58

Patsara

Your op mentioned 'really poor' kid, I'd love to know your definition, in terms of household income.

Notmadeofrib Mon 05-Nov-12 14:45:21

not when you have to live in a certain area hang on we don't live in a communist state! You do not HAVE to live in any area at all. You choose to live in an area.

I could move 15 mins up the train line and save myself about £500k on housing (that's a lot of mortgage), but my choice is to suck up the cost, eat lots of beans and lentils, shop in charity shops and live here.

You are making choices too.

Dahlen Mon 05-Nov-12 14:57:40

I love the idea that we can all move to cheaper areas to save housing costs. Quite aside from the fact that many people will be faced with a bill of thousands immediately on moving, whatever you save in housing by moving to a cheaper area will be recouped - sometimes more so - in increased commuting costs.

So you could move to a cheaper area and find the same work in that area. Except for many people their field of work isn't available elsewhere in a cheaper part of the world. And on the rare occasions when it is, the salary is often lower as a result of being in a cheaper part of the world.

Hexenbiest Mon 05-Nov-12 15:00:58

Actually I think it is genius from the Treasuries point of view because they can slowly start getting rid of it - something they've wanted to do for years apparently – well that what I’ve read in press.

Start with high earns - bring the levels slowly down or not raise it with inflation - start talk of capping it for two DC at other end or for all- few years and few and fewer people will claim it and then SAHP will be less informed about claiming it to get their Home protection Insurance for their state pensions - so long term saving their as well.

Fact the way they are doing it is very unfair, it will currently save no money and at time when many families with DC are struggling misses the long term point.

Jins Mon 05-Nov-12 15:09:40

The savings are paltry in the scheme of things so there must be an ulterior motive.

ihategeorgeosborne Mon 05-Nov-12 15:15:26

Jins, there's definitely an ulterior motive. I think it's all a bit sinister and calculating TBH hmm.

HoneyDragon Mon 05-Nov-12 16:26:58

People are restricted to areas because of work. Sorry but that's a fact.

Jins, there are of course ulterior motives.

Anyone remember in the '80's when the interest rates hiked. People were made homeless overnight. Same sneery shit then ... "well you were living beyond your means and didn't deserve a 2 bed semi when we have to rent" was around then.

And it's hard. Bloody hard when lose everything. And you claw your way back and there is ALWAYS some bastard who doesn't want you to have it, or wants to take it away. And do you know what, it's never people on their uppers who think like this. Is the privilged, entitled and wealthy bastards that don't want you to have it, and they are the ones who make sure it's taken away, so they don't have to lose theirs.

That's not even politics. Its life. And I despise people who who have these attitudes because they are normally he pretenders and the deluded and they think the know, but they don't. sad

OwlLady Mon 05-Nov-12 16:28:35

of course there is an ulterior motive and partly it's a smoke screen because of all the other cuts they are making

the thing that annoys me the most is that before they got voted into power DC made a huge deal about 'traditional families' and volunteering and all the rest of it and these cuts directly affect the people he wanted the vote off initially and more fool them for believing him really (sorry)

OwlLady Mon 05-Nov-12 16:29:33

I agree with all of that honeydragon

Jins Mon 05-Nov-12 16:44:31

The same thing happened when they introduced fees for university. I remember all the cries of "Well why should we pay for these students?" Fees now at 9k and students starting working life with debts that equal many mortgages.

This is in the same vein. It's the start of a massive erosion of the welfare state and we should all be resisting it. Better a few get a benefit they don't need now than have the majority of families lose it over the next 15 years or so.

Too much sneery shit and not enough thought about where this will end up frankly

HoneyDragon Mon 05-Nov-12 16:52:28

Too much sneery shit and not enough thought about where this will end up frankly

^ That, exactly that.

Mum2Luke Mon 05-Nov-12 16:53:56

Patsara if you think this is genius and you seem to think one person earning £60K gross earns alot when actually they don't as they pay 40% tax on their earnings, pay all the bills, plus tax, insurance and fuel not to mention all the rest for their car as well as food food the family.

This is what my dh earns as he has slogged his way up to middle management, I work as a casual catering assistant so work is not always there. Have resigned as a childminder as it is getting harder and harder to compete with nurseries getting government funding (which cms don't get unless you are accredited and you have to jump through hoops to get that). Am going to have to wait until my youngest starts high school next year to apply for full-time work as we get no child tax credits and next year our CB is being taken off us when we will need it more than ever for hign shool uniform, shoes, trainers, football boots and school lunches as again we get no help from this government even though we work as hard as anyone else, why the hell shouldn't we get something back????!!!!!!!

angry wine

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 16:57:12

Oh and re uni many of the kids in the same bracket won't even be able to go to uni as they won't qualify for the maximum loans for living expenses.

3dc-no spare cash = no uni

The poor are covered, ditto the rich but the middle quite frankly are left high and dry!

Having said that the middle are probably stuffed re uni anyway as unis are trying to attract more from poor backgrounds,the rich go to private schools so re actually getting into uni the middle kids are going to find it a lot tougher!!!!!

Viviennemary Mon 05-Nov-12 17:13:42

I can see both sides as I wouldn't be pleased to lose it if it affected me because I would have budgeted taking it into consideration and now gone! But on the other hand £60,000 is a very good salary by most people's estimation and the only place it wouldn't be considered much is in London because of house prices and rents. That's as far as I can see it. I think the student loans thing is a far more serious cut.

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 17:15:51

Errr London isn't the only £££££ place to rent or buy.Doubt dp and I could buy our studio flat in Bath now let alone a 3 or 4 bed house.

Viviennemary Mon 05-Nov-12 17:22:31

But I don't think the answer is for the state to subsidise inflated house prices. Most people who bought say 15 years ago could hardly afford their houses now. I wouldn't mind moving but the jump is huge so we won't.

Uppermid Mon 05-Nov-12 17:24:17

Well good for you that you can afford it. Whilst I agree £60K sounds a lot of money but everyones circumstances are different. If you live in the North on £60, its probably a very good salary, however £60K in the south east, isnt that much (I know its a hell of a lot more than £20K!)

Also it is completely unfair. It should be on the household income, not one persons. As has been said time and time again, you could get one family where one parent earns £60 and all the CB is gone, or two parents both earning £49K they keep it.

And the money its really gong to save isn't much at all. They'd be better off getting companies top pay their tax and closing loopholes that allow the rich to not pay their taxes - but they won't

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 17:34:27

But the state subsidises salaries with TCs sooooooo....

Darkesteyes Mon 05-Nov-12 17:39:48

Sweet kitty its a benefit. The title of it is a bit of a giveaway dont you think?!

Darkesteyes Mon 05-Nov-12 17:41:42

Hmmm So its ok when high earners opt out of overtime so they can keep their Child Benefit but when someone in a low paid job does the same by opting out of overtime (and a lot of overtime is intermittent in lower waged jobs causing backlogs in tax credit paperwork) to keep their working tax credits they are viewed as scroungers by some in society and a lot in the media. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Oblomov Mon 05-Nov-12 17:46:55

Did we establish/confirm that the Op was a troll, who has since left?

WinnietheWho Mon 05-Nov-12 17:47:11

OP - how breathtakingly arrogant of you to assume that no one losing their CB will miss it or should complain about losing itangry:
You don't say how many DC you have, but let's assume it's two. You will lose £1752 pa which is 1.75% of your salary. Someone with 3 children on a salary of £60K is losing 4.16% of theirs.
I imagine if your employer said they were reducing your salary by 4% overnight, you would be somewhat pissed off and you might then!

sweetkitty Mon 05-Nov-12 17:47:27

Darkesteyes - it used to be called Family Allowance then became child benefit. But what's a name eh? Same way Tax Credits have nothing to do with Tax. Whatever it is it's going anyway.

WinnietheWho Mon 05-Nov-12 17:48:32

....might then complain!

OwlLady Mon 05-Nov-12 17:50:11

why does it matter if they are both earning?

my husband is a higher earner, he earns just over 60k but he is in his 40s and has had to climb up the greasy pole like your next man. When we first met he was on less than 20k, then less than 30 and 40 for years, despite studying and getting two degrees through OU and distance learning and working in industry. It's only recently he has managed to get promotion by moving company etc. i think we have all been reliant on lower wages at some point and for us it was without top ups from tax credits.

We will cope though but we will most probably never own our home or anything else of value and it means my poor daughter will be at the hands of our care system which seem to think she can go out shopping on her own eventually hmm despite being in nappies as a teen and having the mental age of a toddler. For some of us it smarts even more that the system for allocation isn't fair, intelligent or even well thought out, especially when you take into account the historical aspect of family allowance

OwlLady Mon 05-Nov-12 17:51:03

sorry my reply was to darkesteyes and I type extremely slow obviously, it's because as a sahm my fingers have become so lazy they have turned to rubber like a spitting image puppet

Prarieflower Mon 05-Nov-12 17:52:09

Errrr in my dp's job you don't get paid for overtime.You work until the job is done(weekends,late evenings,evenings at home on the laptop)or you don't have a job.There is no extra pay for it.Sometimes there is a tiny(after huge taxes) bonus that might edge you over the threshold but paid overtime no.Have to say I'm kind of wondering if it's worth working hard.

In his last job there was but why shouldn't anybody working all hours all week paying shed loads of tax decide they don't want to do voluntary paid overtime at the weekend so they can see their kids particularly if said overtime is taxed to buggary so you see little of it and you'd lose your CB.hmm

OwlLady Mon 05-Nov-12 17:57:41

I think it's to stilt aspiration as well.

My dh was from a council estate, as were my parents. We still have family who live on them, who work, can't say I see many dole dossers tbh, contrary to daily mail belief. As a working class woman I find it stifling and unfair.

Salary of £60k - take home £46k
Child benefit on 5 kids £4k
That's a huge % drop

OwlLady Mon 05-Nov-12 18:06:43

well I just hope my carers allowance increases as a result, just over £50 a week v's my daughter in care because I have to work 200k ++++

but David Cameron had a child like mine, maybe he understands hmm

OliviaMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 05-Nov-12 18:12:11

Ahem

OwlLady Mon 05-Nov-12 18:21:23

is that to me?

no-one has actually challenged me because they know very well that neither of the Camerons had to give up work to care for their son full time and they had hell of a lot of care, quite rightly though - everyone should have that support. So whilst they may understand the emotional impact I doubt they truly understand the physical side of it fully. I am very sad for their loss though, i shouldn't have even brought it up but he promised not to target families like ours and yet as I said earlier in the thread even at a local authority level we have been targeted first hmm

WilsonFrickett Mon 05-Nov-12 18:34:18

I don't think it was to you Owl. You didn't say anything about DC's boy that isn't true, after all. I think it was more to posters alluding to the op's non return

OliviaMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 05-Nov-12 18:40:14

No, owl, it wasn't. What I meant to say was:
Evening all
Please be nice to one another, even if you disagree with each other.
thank you.

HoneyDragon Mon 05-Nov-12 18:40:20

'bout time you turned up Olivia. Fishermans friend? <<proffers packet>

HoneyDragon Mon 05-Nov-12 18:42:51

Wot Olivia is acksherally sayin' right, is that it is probably not in the spirit of Mnet to call posters that disagree with your opinion "daft Bints".

OliviaMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 05-Nov-12 18:44:36

Have you got a strepsil honey dragon?

HoneyDragon Mon 05-Nov-12 18:46:51

Honey & Lemon or Blackcurrant?

Viviennemary Mon 05-Nov-12 18:48:32

I thought Daft Bint was a term of endearment. grin

HoneyDragon Mon 05-Nov-12 18:54:15

Aaaaaaaw Viv you daft bint thanks

Only when your intentions are both pure and noble or drowned in gin

Viviennemary Mon 05-Nov-12 20:58:23

Aaaw That's the first time I've had flowers!!

reallyboredatwork Mon 05-Nov-12 21:07:49

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

reallyboredatwork Mon 05-Nov-12 21:18:42

Sorry, that was for the OP.

Mum2Luke Mon 05-Nov-12 21:38:50

If we are rich with my dh earning £50k before tax the why am I having to look for a second job? I work as a casual dinner lady in the school kitchens (bloody hard work) for £6.65 per hour and because we get no help with childcare, I'm going to have to work as a care assistant at nights to top up. We will have even less time together than we have now.

I have had to give up my job as self employed childminder today as I am fed up with competing with nurseries getting funding and offering free childcare whereas we get no help.

We have two older adults (22 and 19) and a 10 year old as well as us two, the eldest is looking for work after having graduated and worked in Germany for a month and the 19 year old is training to be a chef on an apprenticeship so they live at home and earn their keep doing jobs in the house. I do not even see the cb my 10 yr old gets, its goes to his bank a/c.

So think about what you are saying, its sounds very snobbish Patsara. angry

ReallyTired Mon 05-Nov-12 21:39:13

We are keeping all our child benefit. I still think its a crap idea. Its a cut that is going to cost more to administer than it will save. There are loads of ways that people can reduce their income (ie pensions, childcare vouchers etc. not doing over time, self employed becoming a company)

it is genius in the sense that the most vocal of society are losing their benefit. It is a smoke screen for the really cruel cuts to the disabled and vunerable.

The changes haen't even been implemented yet and already they are onto the next phase! Now it's child benefit for the first 2 children only. How many of YOU will that affect? What about the phase after that, and then after that? How long before Child Benefit is thing of the past. I give it 2 years.

Jins Tue 06-Nov-12 10:10:10

I've seen reference to not doing overtime a couple of times now and I'm not sure it's an option for the majority of HRT payers. Paid overtime stops at a fairly junior management role in most professions. When I worked for a Local Authority overtime wasn't paid at senior officer level which starts at just under £25K. It was the same when I worked in the private sector - no paid overtime for professional staff but occasionally there were bonuses. My old firm hasn't paid a bonus since 2009 as far as I know and there hasn't been a pay rise either.

I agree with Justforlaughs. The next phases are the ones to worry about and the ones after that. Will we be seeing sneering from two child households at people with 3 or more? I bloody hope not!

OwlLady Tue 06-Nov-12 10:29:02

A bonus? Neither of us have ever had a bonus! a bottle of wine at christmas or winning something on the christmas raffle is about as exciting as it gets

Jins Tue 06-Nov-12 10:33:07

I never got a bonus either but then I never reached senior level and wouldn't have been considered for one. Bottle of wine I don't drink and a business card holder were all I got but I know that two of the managers got a bonus one year of £500. After tax and us demanding a round each from them I don't think a lot went home

Dahlen Tue 06-Nov-12 10:35:20

Does anybody know why we can't have tax and benefits all under one system? Surely in this age of technology it should be possible to have a system in which entry of someone's NI number is enough to call up their address, income, and thus tax liabilities and benefits entitlement?

I appreciate that implementing such a system would be costly, but the cost of means testing and constantly tinkering with existing, ineffective systems is surely costing more.

Hexenbiest Tue 06-Nov-12 10:46:07

Dahlen it's probably more to do with how bad they are at commissioning decent IT systems and how poorly Whitehall departments work together. I'm not sure if there would be any data protection issues as well.

I got a bonus once- entry level graduate Job - £1000 which was taxed. It was the way that company ran things and it was to do with a massive target being met with loads of unpaid overtime.

I worked in IT overtime was expected and never paid for. DH works in a sector now which demands long hours but doesn't pay for them.

sweetkitty Tue 06-Nov-12 12:02:34

Another thing is how many people on 50-60K actually work a 37-40 hour week, not many I bet. If your are bring paid that amount you are expected to work for it.

My own DH is at his desk at 7am every morning after an hours commute, he leaves at 5pm which means he's back at 6pm so he can see his children for a few hours, once they are in bed he's back on the pc for an hour or two and works at weekends too, all unpaid and never has a lunch break oh and travels in his own time on business as well. It's expected as your made to feel your lucky to have a job as it is.

There's a real culture of that just now which is frightening and again being encouraged by the Tories, workers rights being given up, hey you've got a job your the lucky ones, we can treat you like shit because we know you won't leave as there are no jobs to leave for!

BegoniaBampot Tue 06-Nov-12 21:00:15

Overtime? You mean sometimes working 7 days a week, god knows how many hours - at all hours of the day. Never being away from the phone calls and emails. Having to get up at 3am on your summer holiday and take conference calls etc. Being away from your family for weeks to perhaps a month at a time. All this with no overtime. There might be higher wages and the odd bonus if you're lucky but at least know what you're talking about.

Hexenbiest Tue 06-Nov-12 21:15:30

I do wonder if there has been a shift in expectation of white collar workers.

My Dad worked in a skilled office job and got paid overtime - he was lower end management.

He can't understand why I did loads of extra hours at a junior level and was never paid overtime - it was the Indursty norm - or why DH does the same and why he has to deal with e-mails and phone calls on the family holiday.

I once had a summer job where one of the ‘trainee’ managers finally did the sums and worked out he take more home for the hours he worked if he was just a worker and did the extra hours as paid overtime. They’d be ‘trainee’ for years there and he needed cash so asked to be demoted which they did. He was a nightmare to work with after didn’t want to muck in and get his hands dirty.

ReallyTired Tue 06-Nov-12 21:46:10

"Another thing is how many people on 50-60K actually work a 37-40 hour week, not many I bet. If your are bring paid that amount you are expected to work for it."

Exactly. The smart person would work a sensible number of hours, not seek promotion and get paid 40K. The difference between 40 and 50K is not such a moviator when you lose 4K in tax and then face losing child benefit on top. A famiy person with three kids would prefer a less pressurised role and keep the child benefit for 3 kids.

reallyboredatwork Wed 07-Nov-12 18:50:37

Leave the bastard.

SlackSally Wed 07-Nov-12 19:40:05

But so much of what people are arguing is about choice. You've chosen to have four children, you've chosen where you live, you've got yourselves into debt into the past which you need to pay off.

And to describe someone on £60k as 'the squeezed middle' is offensively ludicrous. The median income in this country is around £25k. That's much less than half of what someone claimed to be the 'squeezed middle'.

Also, (I think this was the same poster) as much as it's true that dual-income households will have lesser childcare costs as their children age, by the same token, SAHP will be (in the majority of cases) 'able' to work and thus bring in an income. Aside from things like children with SN or other caring responsibilities, when children are old enough not to need childcare there is no reason for a parent not to work. Of course they are free not to, if they choose, but to then complain about having less money is laughable.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now