I'm sorry you don't agree with me, Someguy. I always tagged you as a very sensible member
So anyone who disagrees with you is not?
When I say that people don't know what it is like to have money troubles when in a different income bracket, I am serious.
First of all, different salary levels come in different tax brackets. The OP will be in the 40% marginal bracket. Add to this that she won't be in receipt of lucrative tax credits (which, frankly, baffle me). It is very easy for someone on, say, 20k, to think that someone on 80k earns 4x as much as them, but of course that is not the case at all, or even close.
Well yes and no. On £20k with two kids you would pay something like £4000 in tax, and receive about £3500 in tax credits.
So your net income would be £19500. On £80,000 you would pay around £26,000, leaving you on £54,000.
This is roughly 3 times as much, which is still a huge amount considering that the £20,000 will probably be entirely consumed by basic necessities, such as food and shelter. A litre of petrol costs the same whether you earn £20,000 or £200,000. Obviously people do spend more as they earn more - when my income was lower we ate lots of minced beef and cheap cuts of meat, and wouldn't consider spending £50 on a turkey at christmas, or buying a brace of grous for dinner.
Anyway, I imagine that most of the preachers on this thread receive substantial tax credits, so it is very easy for them to get onto their soapbox. It would be interesting to see them if they stood on their own two feet.
There's no sense in lecturing people about tax credits. People should claim what they can. I have always held this view, and is quite independent of my wider views on the welfare state. People have a responsibility to their families to look after them as best they can. If the money is there, you claim it.
And if the government wants to pay people to have children, then that's part of your means, and that's what you budget to. We live in a welfare state and the result of that is very complex in terms of the higher cost of living that it produces, effective subsidies to low pay, and so on. I don't see that it's rational to say 'well you couldn't budget if it wasn't for the welfare state', because (1) people don't have to, and (2) people in many countries DO successfully budget without the welfare state.
Before anyone rushes to criticise, we do live within our means, but haven't always. This is why I can empathise with the OP. It is very easy to justify extravagent spending - in our case, by getting a necessary kitchen in our new house (10k - relatively modest) and a car suitable for a large family (almost 20k, but when MPVs were new on the market, ao not much second-hand availability), as well as other new house expenses. Before you know it, you are 30k in debt. The interest charges are suddenly £500 per month which is a major chunk out of your income.
Eh?
There's nothing wrong with having a £10k kitchen or a £50k kitchen even, I just can't understand why you would go into debt to get it. Same with the car. Interest charges do not 'suddenly' become £500/month, they become that because you've spent money you don't have. That's your choice, of course, but when it affects others, as it does here, it's a problem.
We are fairly fortunate that we have always been modest in spending even during fat years, but because we are a relatively large family, it is hard to limit our outgoings. We don't get any govt handouts beyond child benefit. I find it difficult to have a reasonable debate with anyone who does, tbh. I fund, they spend.
I'm not sure what your outgoings are, but I know someone with a large family, they cancelled their private school plans because they had twins. This has limited their outgoings rather effectively.
An awful lot of people are receiving tax credits that are in excess of what they actually pay in tax. That is why it is a stupid system that I hope the next govt jettisons into space.
Tax credits is just a name for benefits. Unemployed people receive more than they pay in tax, by definition. Many people are too sick for work and will likewise be net recipients,
You can certainly argue that the name 'tax credits' is just left-wing propaganda, and I'm sure that's correct, but the concept of paying people more in benefits than they pay in tax is not a new one.
If you are accepting WTC etc, then you are not arguing on a level playing field.
Again, you need to unravel the welfare state, the 40+% of GDP that goes on public spending, and the ridiculous cost of living of the UK before you can truly argue that.
What you should be doing is encouraging the OP to live within her means and helping her to find out ways of getting out of debt, instead of scolding her for getting into debt in the first place. Imagine if she were to scold you for having a low income, esoecially for the reasons behind it.
Nobody should spend more than they earn, it's just not a rational choice. And generally when people act irrationally, they get criticised, especially on AIBU.
Being on a low income because your husband has left you looking after 3 children is not something that you could consider a choice. Spending more than you earn and then raiding your kids' savings IS a choice, and one which is especially irksome given that, despite what you say about taxes and benefits, quadrupling a modest income would typically result in a 100-fold increase in disposable income. When you earn £20k and have £10/month left over, then increasing to £80k would leave you with £3000/month left over.
I don't see why acting irresponsible money should be any different from any other kind of destructive behaviour criticised on here. Some people seem to see it as a badge of pride, being fiscally incontinent. It's not.