How did people survive before wftc, ctc etc?

hang on nicecuppachar the people I know who are well-off are people whose parents are well-off so could afford to put off working.

my back was injured in my second year of uni and my parents couldn't afford to help me so I left and got a job.

I got married and had a child but I worked and studied part time. my xh pays nothing and left secret gambling debts which I paid off because our finances were linked as husband and wife and he wouldn't pay.

I continue to work full time and to study to improve my situation and I am not, by far, the only one. women of my generation grew up knowing they would have to work to support their families.

the only people I know who have made a success of living as you describe are retired now.

there is no chance anymore of working your way up in any meaningful sense.

NiceGuy - you don't think that's realistic because YOU aren't going to be wondering if you'll be able to put enough electricity on the meter to last a week. YOU aren't going to be going without food to feed the rest of your family.

You HAVE options.

The people that these cuts are hitting often DON'T.

Working in a NMW job? Could YOU survive on les than £13k pa? Even if BOTH parents work FT for NMW, their GROSS pay would only be £26k.

If you then add in childcare for 1/2 DC's, then where I live, that would amount to around £12k pa if one DC was school age, the other preschool age.

Leaving you with £14k gross. After tax, there's just no way to survive without TC's.

Wages NEED to increase to a level that the LOWEST paid can survive on without needing TC's.

Either that or housing costs need to drop so that the LOWEST PAID can still afford to rent a house, A ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS, without needing TC's and HB to do so...

Neither option is particularly appealing to those that will lose out because of it, either employers or homeowners.

But those are the ONLY solutions to the TC's 'problem'.

Paying a living wage won't stop employers from being able to feed their family and keep a roof over their head.

Letting the housing market crash won't stop homeowners in negative equity from being able to feed their family and keep a roof over their head.

Dropping TC's when they change to UC WILL stop poorer people from being able to feed their family and keep a roof over their head.

What can be said to that?!

sorry niceguy at least you have that option. you've chosen not to take it.

I have tried repeatedly to sell my house - no-one wants it. so I'm left to struggle on with, in real terms, less and less money.
you could remortgage to get through. my income is the same as when I bought the house so the bank won't consider remortgaging it because I am now worse off in real terms.

It's all very complex and we are all only human BUT it does strike me that some people are poor life choices.

The people I know who are all comfortable well off have some things in common. 1) They are grafters - seriously, scary grafters who work and work.
2) They have often delayed having a family or have a smaller family.
3) They scrimp in the early years.
4) They take risks.

Sadly, lots of women are poor because they left school with no decent qualifications and had children. They have no experience and no job skills. Then, when they are divorced they feel they can't get a job that pays enough to live.
If women are the poorest, why do so many of them not look to the future , get a job/skills.qualifications THEN have kids.
Of course NMW jobs pay shit money. The key is to ensure you don;t have to do those jobs.

As a disclaimer, I will point out that the meals at our school are so dire that even the Chair of Governors is trying to get the HT to release more of their budget to improve them...

It seems to me that the richer are so busy 'protecting their assets', that they aren't looking down and seeing that in doing so, they are going to cause poverty on a massive scale not seen since the 50's and 60's.

There are so many things wrong with UC, that I don't know where to begin.

No, the way TC's worked wasn't perfect. It had its flaws, like any poverty relief system will do.

But what it DID do, very well, was keep numerous DC's just above the poverty line.

UC won't do that.

Did you know that the NHS is preparing itself for an increase in childhood rickets for when IC really starts to bite? They are training their paediatric consultants to recognise the symptoms. And dieticians too. (Told to me by DS3's dietician that sees him about his allergies).

Is that the way people want this country to be? DC's ending up with a life threatening, deforming, painful BUT TOTALLY PREVENTABLE medical condition through poverty?

The dietician also is being trained to assess childhood malnutrition cases, because they are expecting an increase there too.

Scurvy is another problem dieticians, Paeds and even NHS dentists are being trained to pick up.

One thing people going on about the 80's don't seem to realise is that back then, when you got a free school dinner, it was stodgy, filling, and hearty. Now they serve tiny portions, follow 'healthy eating rules', are often very processed, made off the school site, and NOT in any way suitable as an only meal of the day.

This WILL increase malnutrition. Currently I don't know ONE person whose DC's eat a school dinner that doesn't ALSO have to feed them a proper cooked dinner too.

This WILL increase cases of rickets, malnutrition and scurvy.

NiceGuy - but you COULD downsize, free up some of that money and FEED YOUR FAMILY.

What do the poorer people, in social housing that is often already overcrowded, do to find the money to FEED THEIR FAMILY, when TC's are cut?!

When it comes down to someone having to downsize their home so that they can eat BUT STILL HAVING A HOME, or someone losing their home as they don't have enough money to pay the rent AND EAT, I know which seems more civilised to me...

And if you all support the reductions in TC's "because we can't afford it", then I assume that you all think that politicians shouldn't be campaigning to keep the costs of their canteen food down, and have it paid FOR THEM (a benefit, no?) "Because we can't afford it".

And you think that HMRC should collect EVETY PENNY due in taxes from huge companies that avoid paying it "because we can't afford not to".

Otherwise, ALL the cuts are designed to siphon money away from the poor into the pockets of the rich.

Back when DD was little, and I was working and studying, as a Lone Parent, I was far better off under Family Credit than I am these days. But that was because I was PHYSICALLY ABLE to go out and work.

First in a crappy job whilst studying, then into a job where I was a HRT payer.

Even working in that crappy job, I had money to feed DD and I well, rent a house, save for a deposit to buy, study for a degree, buy all my textbooks, take DD to London regularly (an hour away by train) to go to museums etc.

My DC's haven't even had a day trip to the fucking BEACH since my ex left 2 years ago. Not ONE.

And people think living on benefits is the life of Riley?!

Maybe they should try it for a while. A decent while. So that when your washing machine breaks, you can't afford to replace it, and you are hand washing clothes for 5 people.

When the only way you manage to replace it is because DLA finally make a decision on your claim and pay you 4 months worth of back pay that you have had to try to live without while they pull their finger out.

And I'm FAR from the only person in this situation who is going to be affected by this.

It's taking from the poor, like the disabled, their Carers, and Lone Parents to give to the rich, so that they don't 'lose the value of their biggest asset' (their house).

It's like a reverse Robin Hood!

Homeowners may have large houses which are expensive on paper. But you can't feed someone front that value.

For example if someone values my house at £300k. I don't really have £300k. The bank lent me most of it. Even if I was mortgage free, I cannot get any of that £300k without selling my house and downsizing. I don't think that's realistic.

The loss of TC's, and the changeover to UC will affect Lone Parents, the disabled and their Carers more than any other sections of society.

If, like me, you happen to fall into all THREE categories...then you are going to be royally screwed.

The DWP and ATOS currently class me as severely disabled. They class my DD and my DS2 as 'moderately disabled'. They class my DS3 as severely disabled.

There is NO WAY ON GOD'S EARTH I can work. I currently have epilepsy, arthritis and early stage cervical cancer.

Yet I will be losing nearly £300 a month under UC.

I already struggle to provide the disability aids and equipment (including life saving medical equipment) that the NHS and Social Services no longer have the budget to provide.

When I lose this money, it will come down to a choice between running the HEPA air filter and nebuliser that keep DS2 alive, and FEEDING MY DC's.

WTF do people suggest in these situations.

When I had my DC's, I was NOT a Lone Parent.

When I had my first 3 DC's, I was the main earner in my family, and had NO disabilities.

Then my epilepsy started, blah blah blah, list job, career, house repossessed, went into social housing.

Had fourth DC due to contraceptive failure due to epilepsy meds (it happens, read up on it if you disbelieve).

When DC4 was discovered to have disabilities, it proved to be too much for my ex (disabled himself with severe dyspraxia and Autism), and he left us.

So now a Lone Parent, with disabilities, Caring for disabled DC's.

I can't find a single Nursery or preschool for my DS3, as his needs are so complex. Even the SN Nursery has refused to take him after a risk assessment. Even the LA are currently unable to come up with a placement, and have started on the statementing process despite him only just turning 2yo.

Where the FUCK would I leave him if I am forced to go to work? (Leaving aside the fact that I'm personally too disabled to work in my own right).

With my Autistic 14yo?

With my 10yo?

With my Autistic 9yo?

Alone?

Neighbours are mentalists who are busy making my life hell, to the point where the Housing Association is trying to get a Notice of seeking possession to evict them, so can't leave with the neighbours - the rest work themselves.

No family as I was a Care leaver - and given the physical, emotional and sexual abuse AND neglect I suffered as a child, I am hardly likely to trust my family with my DC's.

So, what's the suggestion?

Yet I'm meant to do everything I do now on £300 less a month, with no possible way of making up that money. And I am already struggling financially!

I am amazed at the talk of the 'poor' being engaged in rampant consumerism.

I am a lone parent on a low income. Even with tc's, I have had to go into debt on a number of occasions to buy food, or school shoes or pay the electricity bill. Everything I own that is new was bought by my parents. Most of what I own is second hand. On two occasions, I have had to rent out my house and move in with my parents to sort myself out financially.

If something is needed urgently and costs less than twenty pounds, I can get it together over a couple of weeks by doing without. If it costs more, I will have to go into debt for it. There are no luxuries in my life.

We were poor growing up - dm ate less to allow df, fb and me to eat. Presents were clothes - knitted items were home-made. Furniture was hand-me-downs from better-off relatives. We walked everywhere and had to finish what was on our plates because we couldn't afford to waste food. We were not allowed to help ourselves to anything but water without permission.

And do you know what? It grinds you down. I am on no way sorry for those who are scaling back on holidays or nannies to make ends meet. I have to scale back on food or clothes or other essentials. I want to save so I have emergency funds but I can't afford to. I work hard, have worked at least part-time but usually full time since being 16 while getting as much education as possible and I am tired. I am tired even of living. so don't come out with all this undeserving poor crap. there are people living in this country today who are in real poverty through no fault of their own.

In my mind, the only workable solution other than Tax Credits, that doesn't leave people (including children) in a level of poverty that is unacceptable in this day and age is to raise the personal allowance to £16k.

But then the government wouldn't be receiving the same tax revenue.

Why SHOULD homeowners keep the (vastly overinflated) value of their properties, when other people are going to be going without food?

Is that REALLY what you expect to see in a civilised country?

Just so that other people don't have to stop sending their DC's to private school (I mean, FFS, there are alternatives, there isn't an alternative when you can't afford to EAT!!) or not lose some of the value of 'their largest asset'?!

You would rather that person A didn't lose some of the value of their house (which they can STILL LIVE IN FFS), while person B ends up homeless because they used their rent money to EAT?!

Seriously?!

Do you not see that as selfish?

Tiggy - I got the 'old' Family Credit, the forerunner of TC's, when I went back to work (and college at the same time) when DD was 15 months old in 1999.

I got WTC and CTC when DS2 was 8 weeks old and I steered working in a petrol station. That would have been late 2003/early 2004.

I think that was the changeover point from 'old' Family Credit to TC's.

So it hasn't only been around for 10 years, as I was receiving Family Credit 13/14 years ago!

My local council office now has a large sign in it directing people to the local food bank. With a map and everything. This is the FOURTH food bank to he set up in my town in the last 6 months.

People ARE going to need this.

The fact that tax credits exist demonstrates that wages aren't liveable. But I think rather than improve things it actually made them worse.

Actually, food has never in our history been cheaper. In wartime 50% of income was often spent on food.

It may not have been a golden era but people survived for a variety of reasons. The work ethic was a lot higher, people didnt have such an entitled attitude and they only had children they could afford.

Tax credits were the worse thing ever introduced, the tax allowance should have been amended instead. People cut their hours, stopped working and had children that they could not afford to support themselves. There are many past posts on here alone, let alone other sites, from people encouraging others to have children as tax credits will pay for them or people asking the route to fewest hours to gain more in benefits. These are the ones now bleating that UC is unfair as, shock horror, they are expected to work.

Too many want it all but at the cost of others. They believe it is their right to not work or work few hours, to have as many children as they like and see essentials as mobiles etc rather than food and shelter. Those that support themselves, live within their means and have the number of children they can afford seem to be in the majority sadly but the new benefit reforms should start turning things around and hopefully children will fare far better in the future and benfits will truly go back to a welfare state for those truly in need.

"So I am puzzled how families on lower incomes could be engaged in rampant consumerism."

Debt. Back in the consumer boom days I knew someone on a low income who took out a £4000 personal loan they couldn't really afford just so that the family could go to Disneyworld for a fortnight.... then cadged £50 off her sister to pay for school shoes. Not saying she was typical but, judging by the way personal debt shot up in the first 10 years of this century, she wasn't alone by any means.

The fact our living standards are going down is essentially as a direct result of the fact our economy has slipped in the global race. Economies such as China have shot past us and other asian economies will do so too.

And why is this affecting us? Because they are now (esp China) demanding resources and pushing prices up as a result. For example, oil & gas. China alone needs a staggering amount each month to keep it's economy going, not to mention to grow. They are buying oil/gas wherever they can. As a result our bills go up as our firms must offer more money to compete.

Lots of rich foreigners are now snapping up properties in London, again pushing up prices. This is not just a UK phenomenon. I read recently about how mothers in China were driving up the cost of formula milk in Hong Kong by getting the stuff imported. They don't trust their own brands but do trust HK's.

The only reason we've not felt our living standards decline until now has pretty much been because our government's borrowed money so we could continue to import stuff and we didn't export nearly enough.

Coming back to the point. CTC/WTC/similar are not the long term answer to raising living standards. Trying to boost living standards for the majority in this way is futile. It's completely unaffordable.

What we need is to change our economy to compete again. And that essentially means lower company taxes. Easier for employers to hire/fire. Less rules/regs and to welcome big businesses as bringers of jobs not just call them tax avoiders and hate them because you think if they paid you'd get more in benefits.

I agree. But my point was that we're on an OK income and that is only way we can afford to live. So I am puzzled how families on lower incomes could be engaged in rampant consumerism. But then we put aside money for emergencies, I have family income protection insurance, etc. Without those things I guess we would have more money to spend if we wanted, but it wouldn't be very sensible. I think families on lower incomes have the same spending constraints AND no protection.
Sorry for previous truncated post!

I agree. But my point was that we're on an OK income and that is only way we can afford to live. So I am puzzled how families on lower incomes could be engaged in rampant consumerism. But then we put aside money for emergencies, I have family income protection insurance, etc. Without those things I guess we would have more mn

Yes, we do too actually Gaelic and we are on a very good income ! I hate waste and buying for the sake of buying!