To think 'in your face Osborne?'

[Littlefluffyclouds81]

I'm not. I know I'm not. I'm personally going to have a glass of wine and celebrate there being a significant amount of egg on the Tories' faces.

"Stormy mobile phones or Internet are not a necessary spending. They are a luxury items and. Therefor not the definition of a poor family. This countries understanding of poverty is what is wrong."

Welfare charities, and the government themselves have said that in order not to be living in relative poverty mobile phones and the internet are a basic need.

Your understanding of what poverty is, is wrong, there is relative and absolute. If you live in relative poverty then you are less likely to be able to engage fully with society. The job centre expect you to have a mobile phone so that you are contactable by employers, they also expect you to have internet access so that you can do job searches every day.

Now think about it, in many areas where the local library has closed the trip to the central library/job centre may cost £3 a day on the bus, add that up for two weeks and you have a basic internet connection.

Oh actually I don't know why I bother, your opinion won't change, you still going to have nasty, spiteful and ill condisdered views. You keep them to yourself:

"“Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.”

Is that what it boils down to then methemummy? Survival?

You called it a luxury, not essential. There's a difference.
And of course, Internet access isn't needed in order to survive, but if you have children at school, where online homework is set every week, or if you want to check job websites every day, instead of once a week in the library, it just makes life a bit simpler.

I also agree that a mobile phone and internet are a necessity for the reasons given.

As part of my risk assessments and policies I need to have a charged mobile phone with me when I'm with the children, especially when we're out and about. It's so I can obtain help if needed and so that parents can reach me. I also expect parents to provide me with a mobile number so that I can contact them as quickly as possible if needed.

My childcare must be 100% reliable and childminders really aren't.

I really am. In fact, I'm more flexible than a nursery and more accommodating of individual requests. It's horses for courses though, some people prefer one over the other.

Internet access is considered an essential now because it is needed to function in modern everyday life. If you have school age children it is needed for homework, if you are jobhunting, you would be severely inhibited without it. You need e-mail. Everything is online now - utility bills, insurance, school admissions, banking - often with discounted rates for doing it online. It would seem unfair for the poorest in society not to have access.

We are one of the richest nations in the world and we have people moaning about the 'poor' accessing the internet and having a TV and a phone

Its strange that in a time of people claiming more and more tax credits, that executive pay has sky rocketed, no?

I don't think my views are nasty or spiteful in anyway. Am i not entitled to an opinion? Regardless of what is said in my opinions mobile phones are a luxury.

After all as this thread has highlighted we are talking about people who are in work and have jobs getting top up on wages. Therefore the need to look for jobs via internet and mobile phones is irrevelant.

I am not saying that support shouldn't be given for the lowest paid but 35k is not a low wage for a family. Someone earning 35k needs to review their spending.

As a family yes we have an income greater than that. But we receive no support from government and therefore budget to ensure we can afford everything we need and want including childcare. Unfortunately the world we live in means tough decisions have to be made.

The reality is as a country, even if we are only toping families up by a couple of hundreds pounds a month we cannot afford it. For way to many years this country and the people in it have been living beyond our means.

I vote Conservative but am very, very glad this got blocked.

The country seemed to able to afford the pay rise for MPs, and to do without massive amounts of corporation taxes it failed to collect.

for anyone else wishing to wade in with advice and outrage:
I don't spend £50 phone bill- although there are plenty of other little bills to fill that gap;
My kids are at a childminder- I was very lucky to find her- they are in very short supply here;
I get approx 35 quid a week top up, not entirely not sure how that would bring my take home pay up to £3300.
I can appreciate that it's sometimes hard to work out the finer details of someone else's financial and personal situation and to understand that these can be complex (happy to answer any questions- but poster up thread was nearly spot on when they wrote that my outgoings are close to £2300- housing costs are very high here). I'm bright enough to hold down a challenging job and raise my kids; so probably bright enough to work out ways to cut expenditure where possible.
I'm nearly at the end of my dependence on child tax credits, but will always believe that the help I got allowed me to get back on my feet during desperate times. I'm enormously grateful to my country for this- and also very very sad that others in my (recent) situation will have to struggle on without it. There are a lot of ways in which we could improve society through efficiency savings, I'm sure; but this government's method of systematically eroding compassion for those who need help just horrifies me.

Methemummy, I'll say it again as you don't seem to have understood. A single parent earning 35k, with 2 pre-school children in full time nursery, would be paying out £1500pm in my area of the country (I dread to think what it would be in the SE). It would leave £600pm for everything else. A woman in that situation does not need to "review her spending". The tax credits and child benefit that she would get would raise that £600pm to about £1500pm. Like I said, if you are able to live on £600pm then please share your tips with everyone else.

I assume you are working with a partner not alone then or never get ill or take any holiday, stormy.

One of the advantages of nursery over other forms of childcare is that they are usually open 51/52 weeks of the year and staff illness or annual leave can be managed without parents having to find alternative arrangements.

Maybe someone who works part time wants to look for a second job, or one that offers more hours.

Maybe they do their shopping online and pay £30 per year delivery saver instead of paying £5 per week for a taxi home.

Maybe they make use of the 'luxury' of Internet access by trawling through ebay for good quality clothes etc for their family, as sometimes you can get really good bargains.

You just don't get it do you methemummy?

"The reality is as a country, even if we are only toping families up by a couple of hundreds pounds a month we cannot afford it. For way to many years this country and the people in it have been living beyond our means."

The reality is that you have bought into this myth. We can afford WTC and CTC as a country, its an investment in our young people.

Ok lets work out 12 billion savings from somewhere else.

Ok start with not lowering corporation tax to 18%..£4 billion

Keep going with not raising the income tax threshold £1 billion, look I've found a way to save nearly half the money and I'm not even trying.

The calculations a PP did above show how someone on £35 k with two children could quite easily need tax credits.

Sadly £35 K for a single mother with 2 kids is not really that much these days.

Or are you going to suggest they can live on magic chicken?

Gideon looked enraged on the news.

Im sure the rat will find an alternative way of pushing it through.

We receive no help from the government either. I don't want any help from the government. In fact, we are paying significantly more under this government. That's fine. Tax should be progressive, those with more should pay more. And the government should go after those with significantly more that we have!

I would imagine that most of the folk that receive CTC do not want to receive support from the taxpayer either, and should their circumstances change, would not receive such help. It's a stepping stone.

Support measures should be put into place in tandem with CTC being cut.

It's not as easy as saying 'these families should budget more carefully'

It's patronising, actually.

Why are people celebrating the fact that other taxpayers who are earning just over the threshold are effectively paying tax to subsidise low pay (often for minimum hours) so that companies like Starbucks and Tescos can make more profits? Also, if it was the other way around and a group of unelected Tory peers had voted down a Labour government everyone here would be spitting fire.

Its the fact that the government have made no effort to get Starbucks and Tesco to play the game and raise wages accordingly evil. I'd let tax credits be cut now if firms were going to raise wages, but they aren't and the £9 an hour change, along with the changes to tax thresholds won't be felt till 2020.

Along with that it has been shown by the ASI and IFS that the NMW increase and tax threshold increase won't benefit the poorest workers who will still lose out.

This wasn't about crowing because tax payers are paying ( btw do you like subsidisng the shooting and hunting industry cause your taxes go to that too along with many other things). The "tax payers" paying is part of the Tory narative when they want it to be stop buying into it.

I think you'd find that most people here would absolutely want Tesco and Starbucks to pay more tax, and they would also recognise that tax credits are subsiding these businesses. However, what Gideon wanted to do was cut tax credits before he's even begun to tackle the much wider issues. If he had increased wages first, then he wouldn't have even needed to cut tax credits, as they would have naturally reduced as people's wages rose. But no, he wanted to show everyone what a nasty piece of work he is, and he has thoroughly succeeded.

People are celebrating the fact that some of the lowest paid workers will no longer be up to £200 per month worse off evil

They are not celebrating the fact that Tesco and Starbucks can make more profit fgs.

Needastrongone. It's not patronising to say people need to budget it's a fact of life. Those of us that receive no help from CB and tax credits have to budget.

One of the problems is the welfare system in its entirety is not a stepping stone for all. It would be fine if it was - for some it is a way if life.

Elizabeth I am not disputing childcare costs are high, I live in SE and have put 2 children through childcare. I note you do not mention the finicial contribution your children's father makes to the cost of childcare.

Prior to having children I calculated costs to ensure I could secure a future for my children without the need of government benefits.

Just as an aside on the reality of childcare. I am a cm and work for teachers only on a stay/pay basis so during school holidays I close and don't charge them.

That a far better deal for them than a nursery would be.

Horses for courses.

A bit off topic but so many posters mentioning that corporations should be paying a fairer wage.
A very good friend of mine works for a verylarge chain of coffee shops. In order to pay for the minimum wage increase (which will apparently cost them 5 million) they have decided to cut out assistant manager roles completely, stop paid lunch breaks, stop subsidised food, and will probably move towards advertising employment opportunities to school leavers, ie those under 25.
So yet again the staff are being punished.

The figures I gave are an example and are not my exact own situation. I used the 35k figure as that was what had been questioned by previous posters. I don't mention the financial contribution my children's father makes because it is zero.

When you calculated the costs of raising your children, did you also ensure that you already had that money saved in the bank? Because surely that's the only way that you could guarantee being able to raise them without the need for benefits.

It's a lot easier to budget on 100k (or whatever) though isn't it? Budget choices are relative then.

We are not talking about those who make welfare a way of life though are we? We are talking about folk who are working. Can you name anyone you know who actively name a lifestyle choice to be on welfare?

And what if your circumstances had radically changed. You had lost the income that you had carefully calculated. You might need the government benefits then.

It's really easy to look at things in a certain way from the comfort of a warm house.

Prior to having children I calculated costs to ensure I could secure a future for my children without the need of government benefits.

You do realise that not everyone is in a position to do that? Accidents happen. Life happens. Marriages break down.

FTR we claim nothing from the government either.