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.

I said expenses aside because they vary so much.
But even 65k+20kpa in expenses is pretty reasonable for someone who works the hours they do, many with long Mon+Thur commutes, working in Central London.

I agree with Saslou, GB made some shocking decisions that have cost this country a lot of money. However by far and away the worst thing he did, which IMO is why he is very much to blame, is that he didn't save for a rainy day. The past 10 years or so have been growth years (obviously not counting the recent recession) and GB squandered all the money when he should have been saving for a rainy day. Same ole Labour - Boom and Bust.

As regards benefits I don't really understand why anyone earning over the national average wage is receiving any benefits. If you think about it, it's ridiculous. People go to work and pay tax they then fill out a form and get some money back (tax free). If their circumstances change they have to fill in a form again. It is such a stupid system. If we want to recognise that people need support it should be done through the tax system not as a separate thing. Finally if the everyone needs these credits then it indicates to me that people are not being paid enough by companies who make huge profits. People should be paid a fair days pay for a fair days work. Too many people are the working poor in this country and too many people are trapped in the benefits trap.

I actually think he did save for a rainy day. But the bank thing was a storm not a bit of rain. And of course the wars in iraq and afganistan hav cost us a fortune. It is not a bit of tax credits that hav got us in a mess it these things.

I did mean Iraq. We were taken there on a lie and it has cost money and lives(both British and Iraqi) that we will never get back. Wrt Afghanistan, I'm not sure that we can achieve anything there, so yes I would bring the troops home. As far as the gold reserves are concerned, to sell at a low price is short sighted. GB may not have been able to predict prices going up but he couldn't say they wouldn't ever go up either and I would rather he'd hung onto our wealth. I think the main problem with GB is that he was reactive rather than proactive. I'm not particularly political but the impression I had of him was that he was constantly startled by a new turn of events and than had to consider what to do rather than seeing it coming and having a plan in place.

I agree op. I am a SAHM and my husband earns a good wage around 50 grand a year. We have a mortage and are paying off a huge loan on an investment which should do us well for the future. As a result we are struggling a little. We have had to cut back on all the finer things in life, but we still have a roof over our heads and food on the table. We haven't had a holiday for three years and I would dearly love to have one but we can't afford it.

We only recieve child benefit and wont apply for any others as I feel we need to take personal responsibility for taking out such a big mortgage and loan. Nobody made us take these out so why should we get hand outs just because we are struggling a bit.

In my opinion mortgage, food, bills and other repayments come first, then other nessecities like transport, clothes shoes etc and finally the frivious things in life that we all love, but can't always afford.

Benefits should be there for those that are desperate. I thought tax credits were brought in to reduce child poverty. How can a couple earning a joint income of 45k possibley say that they are entitled to these benefits. Poverty at 45K - come on. Unfortunately in this day and age people do think they are entitled instead of taking personal responsibility.

But Florence, if it's a joint income of 45k and your paying 2k a month in childcare then things can be very tight.

brogan2 - my DH (and millions of others, I'm sure) works long hours and does a lot of driving (no second home in London for him) and provides more value to his employers than a lot of MPs do. He earns nowhere near the 65K plus 20K 'expenses' that MPs do, so I find it hard to consider them underpaid

I guess our technical income was £44k last year, however, dh, being a self employed builder actually paid out £11000 last year to go to work!!!!!!!
Diesel, bloody tools, running the van, phone bills for work etc.
We do "only" get the £40 a month tax credits and could lose that it we had to but child benefit is a life saver.
I holiday abroad once or twice a year because my parents pay. We have a caravan which we purchased for £1800 cash. We only had the cash because I bought shares in my company and we all got a small windfall otherwise we wouldnt be able to ever holiday independently.
My granny died last year and has left me enough money to upgrade the caravan - we really love going away in it although its a real struggle to afford the £40 a weekend cost.

But Saslou, I am comparing it to what a lot of them would be earning in the private sector.

My DH is a lawyer who works for an investment bank. He earns about 150k. Many of those in politics will have the same qualifications as him and could have followed a similar career path.

It's no secret that Cherie Booth and TB worked in the same chamber. He went into politics, she stayed in law. Even as PM, she still earned more than him.

It's not just law either. There's streams of them who previously worked for companies such as Accenture etc. If they had stayed in consultancy rather than become an MP, they'd be earning far more.

Take Liam Fox who up until last week would have been earning basic MP salary yet as a doctor his salary would have been vastly more without the need to be in London either.

Yes Brogan I see it can get vry tight, but it is your decision to pay childcare, your desicion to go back to work.

Florence, I wasn't talking about me. I work 1day a week and my DH earns significantly more than 45k. I was putting across the POV of many in the country. It's called empathy.

Also, for some, taking a step back means they are unlikely to get back into their career. I don't know many men who would be willing to give up their job and stay at home for 5yrs just to avoid childcare costs so why should a woman. Would your husband?

"your desicion to go back to work"

go back to work?

what do you mean "back"?

Just a quick comment with regards to the Brown selling the gold thing. When he sold the gold he invested in foreign currency - currency investments which pay a return whereas gold just sits and does nothing. Other countries such as Belgium and Switzerland sold gold at this time too and made similar investments. It is easy to say with hindsight that gold prices where going to increase but modern economic thinking is that it is better to hold highish reserves of currency which provide an income and are used to stimulate the economy. Britain still has a relatively low percentage of its reserves in currency.

I don't live in the UK so have a question about the 45K thing - are people talking about 45K net or gross here? Thanks.

Also Florence, consider this. Joint income 45k. Mum earns 30k (teacher), Dad 15k (joiner)

Should Dad give up his job to avoid childcare costs and be a SAH parent considering the reality of how many men see that. The implications on their marriage and his self-esteem etc?

I suppose it depends upon whether you've come to rely on the money or not. But you will likely have similar issues with increasing the standard VAT rate. However, you could say that a VAT rate increase is more targeted in that, apart from petrol which some people do need more than others, many essentials (basic foods, children's clothes, sanitary products, contraceptives, gas and electric) are at the zero or 5% rate. I do think that petrol is a problem for many people though and perhaps they could think about reducing the duty to balance out the VAT increase for the time being. (Or we could have a functional public transport system. ) Anyway, if you have the money to spend you can pay VAT on your consumption of handbags, satellite TV, gadgets etc. Oh, I've thought of another problem with that though - doesn't that mean they'll have to put benefits up if VAT pushes up inflation or are they not exactly index linked? [Puts head in bucket of ice.]

I never understand the gold thing.
To me gold is worthless
Land has use
oil has use
gold? what can you do with that when you're hungry

Beach 45k gross I'm assuming
Uk wages are generally talked about before tax it gives a false sense of value to them

Yes my Husband would be willing to stay at home to look after our DD to avoid childcare costs. He says all the time how he would love to stay at home.

brogan2 - I would happily see them return to the private sector as I feel they have been particularly inept at running the country! I think they must be getting something out of it or they wouldn't do it. Not all MPs come from high earning backgrounds, a lot of (labour) politicians go into politics via the Trade Union route. Call me cynical,but I don't think they all have the countries best interests at heart above their own.

Thanks bronze, does anyone have an idea what 45K translates to in monthly take home just to give me an idea.

The thing that intrigues me about some of the attitudes on this thread is that many people seem to consider it to be a luxury for people on relatively high salaries to own their own home.

What kind of country do you have where people earning far above the national average cannot afford to buy a home and must rent? And is that a country we want the UK to become?

32800 ish I think

If it is a matter of one staying at home, not paying childcare costs and not having to claim benefits does it matter who stays at home. My DH would much rather stay at home to look after if DH (if i was the higher earner) than have to claim all sorts of benefits that we shouldn't really be entitled to.

As I said before we now live in an era where we think we are entitled to all sorts. The economy can't take it anymore and has to make cuts somewhere. I would much rather then take away extra benefits that most could really do without than take away say the NHS.

Fair enough Florence if he has the type of career he can put down and pick up again.

My DH certainly does not. I feel really sorry for the women he works with as it was a hard enough battle getting them to accept he would take 2wks paternity leave. Woman in his job often return from mat leave to find their job effectively gone.

Would your DH feel the same if he had to return to something far less fufilling?

Florence

"He says all the time how he would love to stay at home."

Does he say that to convince you that you should do all the housework and childcare while he sits on his arse?

saslou

"I would happily see them return to the private sector as I feel they have been particularly inept at running the country!"

all of them?

what calibre of MP do you think will replace them if you significantly cut their £65K salary.

brogan2, I don't completely agree with your analysis of the factors that caused the deficit

I agree that the global economic environment was the major factor

I agree that the practices of the financial services industry is a factor. However in countries where the financial services industry is more tightly regulated, the pain of the recession has been less. I'm not saying that the Tories would have regulated the industry properly either - in fact patently they didn't and wouldn't (although they are going to now). But it counts as a fail for Labour that they didn't.

Finally, I think the Labour government's spending was totally out of control. To run a deficit that size was financially irresponsible. Terribly financially irresponsible, and we're all going to have to suffer more cuts now as a result of that.