AIBU to think its become shameful to admit to getting tax credits?

[smallspikyleaves]

it certainly is in my circle

I have had mine reduced recently and was moaning about it only for most of my friends to be kind of like, oh we don't get any anymore. when I would actually put money on that they actually do

It just used to be a given that most people with families got some. and people used to openly discuss it in my experience. now its all hush hush and taboo I think

howabout Really? You are looking at a world population of 7 billion people and your overriding concern is that there are not enough humans around? Or at least not enough of the right kind of humans (Japanese and British?)? Honestly?

Not really up on this - and haven't read all the thread but didn't the government do a U-turn on this anyway - just had a look at the Tax and tax credit rates gov. website all the figures are the same as last year?
Am I wrong?
And yy to a change in attitude....
When they were introduced DP had his own business iirc the tax office told him on his self return he should be claiming something - in fact he got his allowance or something back dated? And it just transferred when he sold up and went to work as an employee.
I remember telling a friend it was unbelievable - did she know you could earn up to £56k as a couple and get basically a tax rebate from the government...
I guess the allowances are lower now?

Some of the problem is some areas are much more expensive than others -and housing costs. Where I live I would say the average salary is still less than £20k...and you could live on that, a couple could buy an acceptable first time house with that...

Howabout, the issue in Japan is beause a) they have found better things to do with themselves than breed and b) they have restrictive immigration policies. There is no shortage of people to go around the globe and there isn't going to be for a long time, if ever. Quite the reverse.

There IS a growing shortage of majestic creatures like rhinos, lions, elephants, monarch butterflies, bees, various forms of sea life at the bottom of the food chain, etc. entirely due to too many humans. This is going to be a dire issue for the survival of future humans especially with the apparent acceleration of effects of AGW beyond original forecasts.

You should check out the many articles and studies lately that say rising income and education will NOT solve population problems. Here's one for you; some are more dire to as much as 14 billion by 2100.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140918-population-global-united-nations-2100-boom-africa/

Nope I don't but naive Malthus any more than I do naive monetarism. I think policies on income inequality in India, Africa etc and sorting out the conflicts in the middle East would have more effect on World population would be much more likely to impact World population than any amount of social engineering through welfare policy in the UK. My second point was that the UK current policy is in the wrong direction to reduce birth rates in any case.

On endangered species and husbanding natural resources I think the less than 1 billion in the EU and the US have a lot to answer for to the rest of the World in terms of squandering resources.

(I am not that up on China and it's current population drivers? On Japan I agree it is about a population with sufficient incentive to work and have fun but little incentive to grow up and bring forward the next generation).

Sorry * but should be believe. Other typos too as I am obvs a tech dinosaur as well as an economic one

Governments around the world need to be doing everything they can to massively slow population growth. By billions.

Exactly. Incentives should go to those who do not add to population.

Childfree ppl are getting fed up of being told that they can do the lowest paid jobs out there and fed up of being told that they can sofa surf just because they havent got living proof that they have had sex without contraception.

IMO most childfree ppl would just be happy with being respected a bit more and not being told they should suck up the above shit just because they dont have kids.

Spikey how can childcare costs wipe out your earnings when you get around 60% of your childcare paid for by tax credits?

Wanting to work just 25 hours, have three children, holidays, car etc is highly entitled.

I too think society would be fine if we stopped paying people for children, as well as saving financially the children are more likely to be born into stable environments with adults that teach a good work ethic. Also better for the environment to have fewer.

All tax credits have done is allow people to have lifestyles they can't finance themselves.

OP won't be back.

Not read the whole thread but last week when it was st pats day last week my FB was full of people ask why their money was early

My friend can return to work after mat leave to 16 hours tax credits and childcare.

I won't get that and would have to work 25 hours to get that without childcare.

They originally replaced the increased tax allowance that came with supporting children. So now that the thresholds have been frozen it is essentially a tax increase. It worked from day one as some people were too embarrassed or didn't realise even on a good income you could get them. I have 2 kids and single parent working 3 days and will loose mine so I am paying the same tax as when I was single with no kids. Back in the 70/80s my dad got a married man's allowance for my mumwho didn't work. Stealth taxes at their finest. And yes people are reluctant to own up because now it means you have a low income but that wasn't the case when they started, its only taken 10 years and now it's seen as a benefit!

Right what I dont understand when talking about things like this, is in the olden days when people had very large families, like 10-15 children,the man went out to work, the woman stayed at home, how did they manage to live? now i know part of this will be hand me downs and fresh cooking, but how else?

I have 3 children work 28 hours, have a car my father bought me when my other one died and haven't had a holiday for years. I don't think that I have a lifestyle that can't be funded, I'm a teaching assistant and the pay is crap, but the job I love, and don't want to do anything else.Husband works for a well known supermarket, so his pay is pretty crap too, but at least it's full time and has some benefits.
Tax credits brought our income up to a reasonable level. I've lost approx £300 per month over the last 2 years as my eldest two went off to Uni. I have to make do with what I've got when they come home during hols. So I get £80+ a month now, as I still have a 15 year old at home. I haven't had a pay rise for about 4 years, and I'm only expecting 1% this year. It's all very well putting the tax threshold up, but I don't earn enough to make use of it!

Shazza lots of different ways.

Housing costs were way, way down.
Children let full time education earlier, and it was common for the older children to contribute all their wages to the family - keeping just a tiny amount for pocket money. Even girls who went out and worked as servants would send their wages home.
Much lower standards of living. A week at the seaside was a VERY middle class thing!

So really, your costs would be - rent (very cheap, especially as sharing rooms and even beds was very much the norm) coal and food. Clothing and shoes wouldn't ever be bought new.

Plus they didn't have things like makeup, smartphones, shampoo, cars etc. A bar of soap and that would be it.

Lukesme but that's what it is, a benefit. It is not linked to income tax in any way. The name is very misleading.

jamdonut wouldn't you agree that it is a lifestyle choice to work part-time hours, term time only, when your dependent child is 15 and presumably doesn't need childcare?

pinkflowerbluesky, yeh i spoke to partner about it and he said the same,curiosity really, i dont kow how i would manage without my tax credits to be honest.

"the man went out to work, the woman stayed at home, how did they manage to live?"

It's very simple: the cost of living, and in particular of housing, was much lower in relation to wages.

In all honesty as much as the good old days are lauded on here, they weren't.

Misti, but it was also that women and children had virtually no status at all.

Toys, clothes, shoes, warmth, privacy and nutrition were not seen as important, for the most part.

shazza what pinkflower Is describing might have been true in the post war period, but when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s (single parent family in London) my mum was able to buy us a decent standard of living on a teacher's salary. No benefits except child benefit in those days. We always owned our own house. My husband's parents (working class, midlands) also had a pretty decent standard of living, on a single wage with three children, one of whom was disabled.

I think shazza meant further back than that misti

I don't think huge families of 10-15 children were very common in the 60s and 70s.

pinkflower that's not what my childhood was like, at all. I think we are talking about different eras. As recently as the 1970s and even 1980s it was possible for ordinary people on ordinary salaries to have a reasonable lifestyle without benefits. It was still common certainly right up until I left school in the early 1980s for families to live comfortably on a single income.

Yes, but shazza did specify families of between 10-15 children which I don't think was common in the 70s!

Seems to be she was talking about pre-1914.