In not having much sympathy with a couple on £45k plus per year having some benefits cut?

[ssd]

There is loads of this on the news just now about how "middle income" families will be having some child tax credits cut and might be paying more tax. They news are showing what to me looks like comfortable off families having to do with a bit less. Is this really so bad? I know an income of £45-£50k per year might not be much in central London but will keep you in style in parts of the north, but how bad will it be? So people might have to change jobs/give up the second car/holiday at home instead of Spain every year? SO WHAT? There are plenty of us living on less than £25k a year who have had to cut back since having kids and take this as a fact of life.

I know MN is made up of mostly middle earners and I'll get pelters for this, but I don't really care. Anyone I know on a middle income can afford to give up some things _ its called life.

Not an easy option, but an option nonetheless.

"I love the way moving house is talked about like an easy option??"

Are you really going this time, or are you going to come back in a few minutes to tell us all how happy and grateful you are with your lot?

People who say that a lot are so interesting and fun.

ooh your cage is truly rattled...bye bye

"Not an easy option, but an option nonetheless."

Is it an option for ALL people on £45K to move house?

Where should they move to? What will happen to the people on lower incomes who currently live in the areas they move to?

Making a lot of people in a particular income bracket a lot poorer is going to have consequences. Even if those consequences are just for the vendors of lattes and breadmakers.

People earning 45K are not earning too much. People earning less are not getting enough and their income should be topped up so that life is not a continuous struggle. Life is expensive and we shouldn't all accept with such ease that we have to struggle and have nothing nice in life because the Govt has fucked up. Why are we the first to experience hardship? Let the Govt lead by example. Someone mentioned on MN a while back that MPs who lost their seats get about 80K to ease themselves back into real life. How much tax credit would that pay?

just to clarify.

i am not the poster that suggested anyone on a £45K income is in a mansion or has a swimming pool or enjoys cappucinos.

i am fully aware that many people on said income live in small houses/flats and have to stick to a budget in order to remain in the black.

i suggested that if people find themselves in a situation where their income is reduced(as a direct result of cuts in tax credits), therefore leaving them short every month then a reasonable step to take would be to reduce your mortgage payments or downsize, both if necessary.

if someone loses their job, they adapt their budget to fit their new reduced income. it isn't pleasant but the fact of the matter is, they can no longer uphold the lifestyle they previously held and cutbacks must be made or else they will end up owing money.

this is the same. regardless of the reasons behind the reduction in income, people will have less to spend every month. they will have to find that money somewhere within their budget and if you have most of your income tied up in your mortgage or rent then that is a first port of call in the search for that money.

This thread is just nasty in parts.

DH earns a six figure salary but until 2years ago we were struggling a little and at that point he was on 80k. Sounds a lot but we didn't see much of it. This is because we were crippled by huge student debt, DH owed 35k (as many law graduates do) and I owed 15k. So running 2 cars and with a mortgage in an expensive area (to allow DH to work)and 50k of student debt we struggled.

So there's no point saying 45k is a vast sum to live on without looking at all the variables.

Saslou, our generation is certainly not the first to experience hardship. In fact, we probably face less hardship than every other generation that's gone before.

But booyhoo, people aren't buying houses at the moment. If a person sells for a reduced amount, they still have to pay back the mortgage they borrowed in the first place. My house isn't particularly valuable (was the cheapest one in my area with enough room for my family and ds2 and ds3 share a bedroom)but my mortgage is still a huge chunk of my income. Can't change mortgage as I have fixed term arrangement and couldn't get a cheaper house, even if I could sell this one. If dh was made redundant I did get insurance to cover mortgage but this is why repossessions are so high. It really is too simplistic to say people can just move. What do we do about our jobs/schools. This is a danger of having an economy based on house prices where we have been forced to borrow more than houses are really worth in order to house our families.

I appreciate that people work in expensive areas, I live in quite an expensive area so I have accepted that if I wish to continue living here I cannot buy.

There is a 3 bed house up for sale in my village for 350K, I can't afford it and I just have to accept that. The mortgage payments would be too high and I cannot afford to save that amount of deposit. So I rent a lovely if modest home for £800 a month and commute to work. I did own my own home but recognised I could not afford to do so any more so relinquished what was after all a luxury.

my breadmaker was £20 from ebay.

Perhaps if we all let go of our house buying obsession prices would come down to a sensible level. I am glad to be out of the whole sordid business to be honest.

Houses do seem to be selling round here again.

brogan2 - I don't mean ours is the first generation to experience hardship. I mean that the ordinary person is the first to experience cutbacks while the people who put us in this position get to carry on as usual. Don't see the MPs or Gordon Brown worrying about making his motgage payments or getting repossessed. Sorry if i wasn't clear

Considering the amount going to be lost to people who are on £45k+ is going to be £40/month, I would suggest that people are not going to be having to move house as a result.

tbh I think its a non - issue and a red herring.

While they are going to cut tax credits they are also planning to put in tax breaks for married/civil partnership couples.

so the people who are going to really miss out are single parents, this for the social crime of not having another half.

(who said shop in waitrose? I wish! thats for the hard up pensioners dont you know ))

saslou i accept that this isn't an option for everyone, there is no one answer that will fit everyone. but for many it is a viable option, again, not one they are comfortable with but when faced with the option of moving my family and children from the area and their school or having to borrow every month to keep our heads above water i would move. again, to clarify, i know this isn't an option for some but for others it is, even if not one they would prefer to chose.

But if prices were to fall dramatically and long-term that would have a catastophic effect of on the tens of thousands of people like us who have anything other than a small mortgage.

So a 500k house is suddenly worth 250k but the owners still have a 260k mortgage. They thought they had security and equity and instead they are now living in a house worth less than they owe on it.

Such a housing crash may mean many others can buy but what about those left out to dry? How would that be good for the economy?

BTW, I'm not talking about people mortgaged right up to the value but if I'd put 250k down on a 500k house I'd be calculating that even with a fall, I'd be ok.

Sorry haven't read all 11 pages, but basically it all comes down to disposable income. And when talking about disposable income, it doesn't necessarily imply that all the money is already accounted for on big houses and fancy cars.

DH and I have a joint income of approx £45K, however almost all of my take-home pay is swallowed by childcare and travel costs. That leaves us with DH's salary which is less than £25K. So does that then make us low earners!? If I didn't work, then we would still be on less than £25K. So either way our take-home pay is poor.

We live in a ex-council semi, in a not-great area, and have 2 almost antique cars. We are not rolling in it by any means.

Tax credits (the small amount that we get) were an important part of our calculations when we decided how we could manage, and whether we should both work or just DH.

I think 3 things put us here and none of them are GB or M.Ps (of any party)

1)Global recession caused primarily by...

2)Irresponsible practices by our financial institutions (esp in US). This includes lending too much to those who cannot afford to pay it back.

3)Our own 'have it now' culture. We all want everything we see and we want it now. Oh and why wait and save up when we can bung it on a CC and think about it later.

brogan i totally agree with your 3 points.

however i do think that MPs should lead by example and reduce their huge salaries and expenditure to reflect.

Well I think we have to agree to disagree on that as (expenses aside) I don't actually think they are overpaid.

Personally, I don't think 65k (is that correct?)is a shockingly high amount considering what most of them would be earning in the private sector esp in London, had they not gone into politics.

MPs do not earn huge salaries.

Their expenses is a different matter.

Actually, I would hold GB responsible. He caused the pensions crisis as he interfeared with the profit that pension companies made when they invested pension money. He raised the lower rate of tax from 10p to 20p in the pound, affecting lowest paid workers. He sold Britains gold reserves when prices were at a low. It subsequently rose, costing us billions. He and Blair before him have kept us in Iraq, which is sucking money by the second. These things have meant we are in no position to cope with a global crisis. He has bailed out the banks and got nothing in return - they are not lending to small businesses and people who need it,so stalling recovery.

I will accept that we do have a cc culture

Wrt payment of MPs.This, for me comes down to whether or not we consider them to be good value for money. Judging from the state of the nation, I'd say not.

Well he lowered it to 10p in the first place.
Gold price index was not expected by anyone to rise as it did. Iraq; aren't we mostly out of there now? Do you mean Afghanistan?

I'll agree a bit about the banks. He had no choice but to bail them out. Doing anything else would have brought our economy to its knees in a way we're seeing in Greece. The Tories agree with this. However, it absolutely should have been a condition of the bailout that they start to lend again. Absolutely.

ok you say expenses aside. why? expenses make up the income and so should be counted as income. therefore increasing their salaries.