Advanced search

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.

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