to think that a girl called Jack should stick to budget cookery tips and NOT bash

[LordElpuss]

people who are losing their child benefit

Guardian article

also don't understand the reference to disabled people earning over 50k?

this does not effect dla which is universal and what IS designed to help with those additional expenses

And you need to go to Moneysupermarket to sort out your gas/electricity!

Apart from the fact that she can talk about what she likes, whoever she is, and its none of your bloody business, she has a good point as well.

Regarding Mrskoala's list ,spending £400 /month on food and £150/month on nappies, formula and kids clothes is being pretty well off, IMO.

Oh good, not just me who thought that - £400 a month on food is definitely well off! That's a lot of money to spend just on food.
Especially when you have spare cash for new kids clothes every single month.

not to derail the thread but. I have just last week got my gas/leccy down to 76 pound all in

I am in a state of shock and delight

no doubt they will soon find some reason to up my bills and increase prices lol

this does not effect dla which is universal and what IS designed to help with those additional expenses

DLA doesn't cover all disability related expenses in a large number of cases. Those with disabilities are known to be more susceptible to poverty due to the huge expenses incurred as a result of the disability.

Mobility allowance element - usually covers the lease cost of a vehicle, but the disabled person often had to fund any adaptations required to the vehicle which can run into thousands of pounds. Additionally, Often a disabled person will need a larger than average vehicle to accommodate a wheelchair or other equipment and a larger vehicle requires more fuel and therefore incurs higher running costs.

Personal care element- the disabled person might need to spend extra on washing, heating, electricity water etc. lots of disabled people suffer from body temp regulation problems and so have to keep their homes warm which costs extra. They might need to have the washing machine on more regularly than normal due to needing extra bed and clothing changes which incurs additional electricity and water costs.
They might need to pay for home help or a cleaner or meals on wheels etc. all of these things will be funded by their DLA so it rarely covers the cost of everything related to the persons disability.

So yes, DLA helps with those additional expenses but it doesn't always come close to covering the whole cost of those additional expenses.

Whether or not you think £50K is alot to live on, the Conservatives would love to take at least £80K a week off the £1000+ monthly tax/NI bill of those on 'higher incomes' whether or not they have children, and probably quite a lot more off the bill of those who pay even higher taxes, and they would probably like them to use the money to fund their own private health care and private pensions and wouldn't be averse to them paying for private schools.

All this leaves the ideals of the welfare state - give according to ability and use according to need - in a bit of a pickle.

Thin end of wedge.

I bought dd an £8 Halloween costume from Asda last week and a £12 coat. this is probably her last for the next 2 months! abd I felt I was being a bit extravagant but she needed a waterproof!

People on a gross salary of 50k are nit realky bringing home that amount of money. I think it would be much better to stop talkibg sbout people's pre tax wage and start talking about what they actually receive after taxation.

As to whether it is a lot if money, that all hinges on where someone lives, how many dc they have to support on that wage etc. Pointless arguing over it because everyone has different circumstances.

She should remember though that fraud doesn't actually exist until the time has passed when people should have repaid cb and haven't. It's impossible to say that it has happened until after Jan.

This is the woman who started a political blog and then added a couple of recipes. Yes she should go back to the kitchen, step away from the politics and turn the clock back 100 years.

We only kept our cb after they revised the amount you could earn. Its the only money I get that's actually in my name so yes we do need it thanks very much

Errr so you don't earn anything? Are you even looking for a job?

obvs she isnt, they have made a decision as a family and a life choice

and if it wasnt her decision and she isnt happy about it, there are a coupke of obvious solutions

I have sympathy for single parents in this situation, but not couples who choose to have one person not working.

oh to have that luxury of choice!

I have sympathy for single parents in this situation, but not couples who choose to have one person not working.

What about couples where one has given up work to be a carer for a child with a severe disability or health condition?
What about couples who unexpectedly had a multiple birth and couldn't afford the childcare for the additional unexpected child(ren) and therefore had to give up work?
What about couples where one has been made redundant and been unable to secure more work which pays enough to cover the childcare bill or indeed any work at all?

Not all couples where one is a SAHP have chosen this way of life, some people have little choice.

well those people clearly havent chosen that then have they.

as I said o have no sympathy for people where they have chosen not to work (as in for a lifestyle choice)

I thought I made that pretty clear

Maybe it would be better if people did have a bit of empathy for others though. There's a disturbing lack of empathy all over the place here.

The way to address a lack of empathy for the poor and disadvantaged is not to sneer at those who are better off.

Not yo mamma - what you actually said was:
and if it wasnt her decision and she isnt happy about it, there are a coupke of obvious solutions

My point is that it isn't always a choice and the solutions are not always obvious and sometimes there are no solutions at all.

Two kids child benefit is about £130, three children is about £185.

I absolutely agree that people on higher wages should not receive this money however!!!!!!!! I think that's a lot of money to lose, I don't understand why if its a "rich"person losing this money that the attitude seems to be that they are making a fuss over nothing.

If a "rich" person came on here and said £100 is nothing, it means nothing to me, there would be outrage!

The whole thing is a shambles anyway.

DH earns over the threshold and signed up for self-assessment. Problem: HMRC won't or can't tell him whether or not I claim child benefit because of data protection. We're at an impasse since they also won't talk to me because I don't earn over the threshold. I have the information but they won't accept it from me, and my savings account into which my CB may or may not go (depending on whether or not I claim it) is in my name and DH has no access.

So, you know, this is fun, and going around in circles.

Rufus... well yeah, as a percentage of income it is a huge difference for someone on 15k a year compared to 50k a year iyswim?

I thought 50k was just the start of a sliding scale of removal anyway?

*People on a gross salary of 50k are nit realky bringing home that amount of money. I think it would be much better to stop talkibg sbout people's pre tax wage and start talking about what they actually receive after taxation.

As to whether it is a lot if money, that all hinges on where someone lives, how many dc they have to support on that wage etc. Pointless arguing over it because everyone has different circumstances. *

And how much lower earners receive in tax credits etc.

Upthread someone mentioned being a single parent, earning slightly less than £50k and having to pay childcare. While they earn well above the national average wage, they will not have a huge amount of disposable income, especially if they have to pay a lot in mortgage/rent.

Imagine a single parent of 3+ children earning £60k, who loses all their child benefit, and pays a lot out in childcare and rent/mortgage. Despite being a high earner, probably in a stressful job with lots of responsibilities, they will probably be much less financially comfortable than either a single parent or couple who work minimal hours so don't need to pay any childcare and have their £10-15k income topped up by a large amount of tax credits and child benefit.

This is why people are complaining about the loss of child benefit, in addition to couples who earn £99k between them and keep all theirs.

Oh do fuck off with your sahm bashing.

not completely agree, it's just my pet peeve. It's happened now, we can't change it and I feel sorry for anyone struggling at the moment, you think you have a certain amount of money and you lose CB, or your housing benefit is cut or your pay is frozen or a massive bill comes in...it's a shit situation to be in if you have cut your cloth to suit your means

pin not sure anyone is SAHP bashing, just rich bashing

There is sahm bashing because some people are taking a view that if a woman is able to choose to sah then she shouldn't be entitled to any financial help because she doesn't need it or else she would be out working. Never mind that working might not be financially viable or that being at home is supporting a hrt payer who might not be able to do a hrt paying job without someone at home ( who then loses cb despite paying for it in a 40% tax rate).

I am pissed off with the assumption that poor people are somehow subsididing the cb of hrt payers when in truth it is the other way around.

The tories are doing very well with their deliberate policy of divide snd rule

louise the bit about lower paid subsidising the CB for higher paid is straight from the politicians! No wonder some people believe it when Cameron, Milliband et al keep bloody saying it

Will if your husband is over the threshold I thought you couldn't claim.

Why don't you just add him to the savings account? Or put CB in his name?