Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

876 replies

ssd · 15/05/2010 09:25

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.

OP posts:
florence2511 · 15/05/2010 16:24

Nope skidoodly

saslou · 15/05/2010 16:29

Beachcomber - 45K would be about 2.5K per month, I think. Wrt the gold, it's not the selling I object to, more the fact that he sold when he couldn't get much for it. I do consider it his job to consider that the price could go back up.

MarshaBrady · 15/05/2010 16:32

We don't have sky because I don't want crap tv in the house.

The neighbour offered us free sky as she works as an editor/director there, we said no.

Why do these threads always up end talking about Sky?

brogan2 · 15/05/2010 16:33

The thing is, everybody who's whinging now wanted that excessive spending.

It's just the credit card senario on a larger scale. Spend, spend, spend then moan when you have to pay it back.

When Labour came to power in 97, the public services were severely underfunded. Yes, it's come at a price but the NHS needed the enormous cash injections just to get by and there is no doubting that state schools and the lives of children in the poorest parts of the country have been significantly improved by that 'excessive spending'.

The irony is, David Cameron will be glad TB and GB did this as he knows it needed doing but his party would never have done it (surestart etc). Just in the same way at TB was Glad that MT did what she did (breaking the unions etc) as he knew it needed doing.

Beachcomber · 15/05/2010 16:33

Thanks for figures.

crumpette · 15/05/2010 16:35

so 2.5k per month
Central London
DP has an ex wife and 2 kids to pay for, including maintenance and mortgage on the house
so every month 1k disappears immediately
then rent in central london is 1.2k
so you're left with a couple hundred
to pay bills buy food petrol etc
which turns out to not be enough
so you get a loan
but the banks are charging onscene interest rates and you fall back on the repayments
and suddenly you're buggered and can't afford a pack of nappies or even food at the end of the month
a 45k income may sound like a lot but it really depends on individual circumstances. I am much worse off living with DP than living alone- I don't think broken Britain will be fixed like this

saslou · 15/05/2010 16:38

skidoodly - I do not think the calibre of our current/previous MPs has been particularly high, so am not sure how we could do worse. We have been paying for peoples porn! Their dishonesty over the whole expenses scandal puts paid to any illusion that we had the best people in the job. Obviously there are some hardworking and honest MPs out there but the rest have shown themselves up for what they really are. People get prosecuted for fiddling their benefits. I can't see the difference between this and how the MP's stole from the British electorate. There are plenty of hardworking, honest intelligent people who could do this job and I think the answer is to make it impossible to abuse the system so we would only get genuinely passionate MPs who could contribute to our country and truly represent our best interests as opposed to their own

tethersend · 15/05/2010 16:39

Don't forget student loan repayments and pensions.

LilyBolero · 15/05/2010 16:42

And although the basic salary for an MP is 65k, the cabinet are earning 130k.

crumpette · 15/05/2010 16:43

oh yes in my case the 2 or 300 left over after immediate beginning of month expenses has to pay minimum payments on 4 credit cards, a loan, a student loan, etc etc....and that's before childcare and travel costs to work even come into it. It's not a lot.

crumpette · 15/05/2010 16:44

I agree re MPs

skidoodly · 15/05/2010 16:48

No system is impossible to abuse.

The expenses system that was so open to abuse ended up where it ended up in part because there was a policy of allowing MPs to top up their salaries with generous expenses rather than giving them salary increases, which were felt to be politically unpopular.

Given the hours MPs work and the fact that we want clever, capable and committed people to do it I don't think we should be cutting the wage they are paid.

lunavix · 15/05/2010 16:49

I haven't read all of this but do people earning 45k have a holiday home in Spain????

Crikey. When ex-h and I were earning around 40k between us we didn't have luxuries - one very old car, I walked for miles every day, food was on a strict strict budget, and we never went out. All our money went on our massive rent (as we live 'down south') and bills. Granted we could have more than likely survived without tax credits (around 35 a month iirc) possibly would have struggled without child benefit. But still, I think some people have a distorted view of how people live - granted 40k might get you lots in some parts of the country, and maybe there's a certain 'privileged' view given to those who live in London on a similar wage. But what about those of us who simply live in more expensive areas?

brogan2 · 15/05/2010 16:50

Yes, Lily and so they should be if they're running the country.

Lol at the 'paying for porn'. You sound like Sky News! One woman, trying to run the Home Office signs off her expenses sheet after making the mistake of trusting her husband to use him common sense. She lost her career over £16 and 5min of trash tv all because she trusted her husband's integrity. Not sure I condemn her for that and I was actually very disappointed that she lost her seat at the election.

MintHumbug · 15/05/2010 17:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sunshine2010 · 15/05/2010 17:07

Well Minthumbug it just means yo cant live in a 3 bed house then. I only know of 2 families that live in a 3 bed house, all the rest live as a family of 3, 4 or 5 in a 1 or 2 bed flat.

You have to be rich to be able to afford a house and its not the norm for most families to be able to afford a place that big where I live.

saslou · 15/05/2010 17:07

Her expenses = her responsibility. If we were paying for that, what else were we paying for? It's not about 'common sense', it's about taking the piss. Besides, it wasn't just her. Quite a few were getting their mortgages paid by us and making vast profit at our expense.

skidoodly · 15/05/2010 17:13

But if a family on £50K can't afford a three bedroom house what will that mean for everyone else?

You should not need to be rich to be able to afford a house.

saslou · 15/05/2010 17:14

Sunshine - families of 4 or 5 should not have to live in 1 or 2 bedroom flats because they have no money to buy a home. Life shouldn't be so hard. People work hard and their tax is paying for everything. Are they not entitled to at least a decent amount of space for their children? Everyone in this country should have a decent standard of living. I maintain that the money is there, just being squandered by inefficient/couldn't give a shit politicians

brogan2 · 15/05/2010 17:16

Sunshine, it's ridiculous to say you have to be rich to afford a house and that families of 5 are living in 1bed flats so that's all MH should expect.

On 50k, it is reasonable to expect to be able to afford more than a tiny flat unless you are limiting yourself to West London or Alderley Edge. So unless you live in either of these areas, I cannot imagine how 50k salary would only allow you to rent 1bed.

katycarr · 15/05/2010 17:16

I agree with sunshine, I would have thought a 3 bed house in London is a complete luxury for most and certainly not one the state should be paying for.

House prices are the problem in all of this, for too long people have been greedy wanting to upsize all the time, treating their home like an investment and it has landed us all in a mess.

brogan2 · 15/05/2010 17:17

Xposts

Joolyjoolyjoo · 15/05/2010 17:20

Can't understand why people seem to agree that £65K is a fair wage for MPs, yet the rest of us, who might have jobs with lots of responsibilities, may have degrees by the bucketload, who earn more than £20K a year should shut up and be grateful.

I worked hard for years to be able to do what I do- I'm pretty sure my grades and degree are not inferior to those of MPs, but the overwhelming view on this thread seems to be that "other people work hard too- so why should you get more money?" Fair enough, but why does that not stand for the MPs too? Why the double standard?

I don't really care about losing my £38/ mth tax credits. I'm more worried about the new ways they will find to squeeze those of us who earn round about £45K, as a joint income.

Priority no 1 for us will be keeping our house. I'd rather have no new clothes for 10 years than have to leave the home I love. priority no 2 will be feeding the dc well- and ironically feeding them good meat, fish and fresh veg costs more than feeding them processed crap. After that we'll have to budget.

We are not responsible for the recession. Other than our mortgage, which we can afford to pay, we have NO debt. I am angry that bankers, with their huge salaries and according lifestyles, caused this, and now we all have to pay for it. Will the banks pay it back?? If you or I borrowed money from them, we would have set terms to pay it back. Do they have to pay it back to us? I don't know.

I do understand the need to bail out the banks (who now seem to be carrying on much as they were, thank you very much), but the kind of fear being put into middle earners right now will stop spending. NOONE SEEMS TO BE ADDRESSING THIS POINT! Everyone is just saying "well, those of you who have professional jobs with a reasonable salary will just have to spend less" Yes! We will!! But lack of spending is NOT going to be a good thing for the whole economy. Mystified why people can't see that

katycarr · 15/05/2010 17:21

But what are you going to do skidoodly, and that is a genuine question. People have said above that they don't want to give up their equity so don't want prices to fall. We are so addicted to buying our own property that we will borrow ridiculous amounts of money to buy a house.

We prop this system up by leaving huge amounts of money to our ( usually grandchildren) so they can buy an overpriced house.

saslou · 15/05/2010 17:26

You are right jooly. I think part of the problem is that so many people are finding it tough that they mistakenly believe that anyone earning more money has automatically got an easy life.That's not necessarily true - an income can look good on paper but a families expenses cancel it out and standard of living is still not good. Our attention should be focused on the continued fantastic incomes of those who put us in this mess