Poor life planning..

[pocketpairs]

With the upcoming budget seen many "poor me" posts, particularly from high/middle earners. I find it frustrating that rather than blame themselves for thier life (& financial planning) choices, they blame some arbitrary government policy changes, such as upcoming introduction of new council tax bands.

Example: Sister & hubby earn £14k net p/m. But their choice to buy a nearly £x.xm house in SE & send DCs to private school means they have £3k (approx) to spend on everything else. They could have taken different choices...£1m houses &/or move to grammar school areas.

Clearly this is an extreme example, but I really don't understand why a family can't survive on £4-6k p/m, especially outside of London. Up until recently, I survived on much less and managed to put myself a firmer financial footing in 40s.

Sure this means some sacrifices, but it seems everyone wants to 'have their cake and eat it'.

Same here. I’m not sure I trust the current government to actually improve public services, but as a higher rate taxpayer I absolutely agree in principle with paying more tax for better public services and distribution of wealth.

People earn money because businesses operate well enough to pay wages.

The state is a complete arse which takes other people's money and distributes it to other people. Usually taking large slices on nonsense projects.

I think people can’t get used to their lifestyle not being as good as a generation ago. There’s a feeling that two full time doctors should have more disposable income, should be able
to send their children to private school and it takes a while for the feeling to dissipate.

But the alternative is children being punished through poverty, which most decent people object to.

Children shouldn't be punished for the sins of their parents.

I say this as someone with one child and carefully considering if we can comfortably afford another. I'm still happy that the child benefit cap has been lifted. I don't want there to be children going hungry.

All decent people would agree with you. However, I suspect most people will not believe the rhetoric that lifting the 2 child benefit cap means that no child will go hungry or be in poverty. If only it were that simple.

Perhaps I'm oversimplify. I agree with the premise that those that earn more should pay proportionally more, otherwise we'll be in a situation like the US.

Similarly, I don't mind the 40% / 45% tax rate, as we need a progressive tax system, but disagree with the 62% marginal tax rate at 100-125k.

While i understand the sentiment that "why am I getting penalised while they get more", the reality is it's just a few ££ per month which can be easily absorbed, and if it can't surely ones priorities must be questioned (if they are moaning).

My sister (for example) says she can't afford an annual holiday abroad (in reality she can - just not an expensive one), but there are dials she can turn down, rather than get frustrated at things outside of her sphere of influence.

The less affluent have less dials they can down. As a moral society we have to provide that safety net imo.

DH and I are middle earners, nowhere near as well off as OP’s sister - but I’m really pissed off the 2 child cap has been lifted. I’ve had one child because I knew two would be a squeeze. If I did have more children, our wages would not go up to reflect that. Why should benefits go up? People made the choice to have more children anyway, knowing the cap was in place.

I’M SICK OF SUBBING EVERYONE ELSE when I genuinely can’t afford a holiday or luxuries because life just costs too much at the moment.

I work for social services and I’m sicking of getting food bank vouchers for people who have spent their money on other priorities and not their kids. Poverty is not the problem, mindset is.

Raising taxes to pay for it is going to push children into poverty from tax paying families I don’t begrudge someone help for one or two kids I’ve been there having a baby at 16 and all but 4+ kids while on the dole is surely taking the piss.
On a side note though universal credit payment per child is about 250 right? If you have all the stuff from having two kids already a third kid isn’t actually that expensive

If they have worked for their income why shouldn’t they enjoy it?

Are people really that naive that they think this will help all children in poverty? No matter how much money you give feckless parents their kids won’t see any of it because they will spend it on themselves! Do people seriously think that kids in poverty in this day and age are hungry/cold etc because their parents can’t afford to feed or clothe them? No they simply don’t bother knowing full well that the state/ social services/ schools will pick up the slack!

We have declining birth rates and need to encourage more children, I understand that. If we play this forward are the only people who are going to be above “replacement rate” (2 kids per couple) the super rich and the benefits class? Most working people, even middle and some high earners, can’t afford to have two kids never mind 3+.

And I just googled and it’s 292 per child so almost 600 more a month if you have four kids! I mean damn if you have all the stuff from having two kids what the hell do you need 600 more for

I think the needing more people for the future workforce stuff is about to be irrelevant with AI taking so many jobs already

This pretty much nails it.

I’m right on the edge of the 60% effective rate. If I get even a 1% inflation pay rise I will be worse off net than I am now.

I can afford it, but why the hell should I suddenly be worse off after getting an inflationary pay rise just to prop up the welfare system even more?

and then posters like the OP come along who think I don’t have a right to be utterly pissed off about it and should just suck it up.

maybe the folk with multiple children, no qualifications and minimum wage jobs should have planned better too aye?

“Financial dysmorphia”makes no sense as a term.

I presume people are using it assuming body dysmorphic disorder just means you think you’re worse looking than you are and therefore financial dysmorphia means you think your finances are worse than they actually are? The word dysmorphia itself means mal-formed.
I’m probably going to be accused of being terminally offended for this, but I don’t care. As someone diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder, it is poorly understood enough without people making it worse by referring to “financial dysmorphia”, which is just nonsense.

It’s all relative though OP. So when you are bringing in 14k a month you are living, and feel like you can be living to a certain standard. I don’t think it’s fair to say they should feel uncomfortable with their choices, yes I never quite understand people who take out the biggest mortgage possible without thinking about their daily living costs after paying it but your sister and BIL have clearly worked hard to get where they are so why shouldn’t they. I don’t agree that they’re not living within their means, they are, they can afford private school and they can afford their mortgage they maybe just don’t have a huge amount after that… so what’s the issue?!

I attended a lecture given by The Economist last week on this topic. This definitely wasn’t the conclusion reached.

Extra rent for the extra rooms, food, shoes, clothes, nappies, toiletries, childcare, transport, haircuts…

If those children are teenagers, I’d imagine £600 a month wouldn’t touch the sides of their costs. The cost of baby equipment is a tiny, tiny percentage of the cost of raising children.

You sound a bit jealous? Also it’s difficult to plan when you don’t know what the rules will be.

From today's report on the impact of this policy: It is estimated that there will be 450,000 fewer children in relative low income after housing costs in the final year of parliament (financial year ending (FYE) 2030) as a result of removing the two-child limit, compared to baseline projections.

Even if this is a massive estimation and the majority of these so called 'feckless' parents decide not to put the money on heating and happily let their children go to bed hungry 🙄 (as if), it's still hundreds of thousands of kids that will benefit.

Well I have an issue with your whinge. You do know that people have aspirations in life to do better or want better?
if you have worked hard to get to earning that salary and want your kids to have a private education - why is that a problem?
I do have a problem with paying more taxes just because I wanted to live better than how I grew up. I made choices to pour so much into my own education, career and aspirations to now have to just pay it away!

Op you sound like an entitled scrounger.

I bet you could have had two but you didn't want to sacrifice the lifestyle you have. Pretty sure many of these "I only had one because we couldn't afford another" would have managed another child if they really wanted to.

I’ve got three kids the jump from two to three doesn’t cost that much, with all the hand me downs, two room share obvs, £300 isn’t going to pay the extra Rent on a four bed house nor should it when people who aren’t on benefits don’t get to live in a 4 bed house.
Teenagers aren’t necessarily expensive unless you spoil them, I mean my parents made me leave home at 16. Not everyone pampers their kids till their 18