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 wouldn't say it is a luxury to own your own home as such, but we do have a problem in the UK in that there is just no security of tenure for renters in the private sector, whereas it seems to be more normal in some other countries to rent and stay there for a long time. That's what has created the mindset that you need to own your own home for family security and why people have maybe overstretched themselves to do just that.

Oh I know that many people need to be in London. Until a rare opportunity presented itself, DH did too. However, many people do not need to be there but could never imagine living anywhere else. But then many people die within a 25mile radius of where they were born which I find strange.

sunshine surely you get the childcare element of the working tax credit for childcare? You can't be on minimum wage and only get £20 extra?

And if we were living on a combined income of 40k, London would be the last place I would live. Amazing place if you're affluent but much of the worst poverty in the country in in London.

but moving costs money, you need a job to go to if you move out of area,

And the problem is that low paid workers, cleaners, care assistants, childcare workers, etc etc etc are needed in the expensive areas - it's not just "oh well move somewhere cheaper" - if everyone on a low wage moved away from the expensive parts of the country those places would fall to pieces!

What I don;t understand is why they are going after child related benefits per se. Fine to say those over £xxk have to take a hit but why target the child stuff. After all by definition some with children will have less disposable income than those without but children are people in their own right. So why don;t they get a transferable tax allowance -well there used to be one but it was phased out in favour of child benefit and child tax credit. If they make those means tested then we are back to a worse starting position than before.

And if anyone thinks that having a income over £45k but with children still leaves you classed as rich then they clearly have not had to pay childcare costs directly themselves. I do actually wonder if either the PM or Dep PM could tell you the cost of a weekly nursery place (it used to be the loaf of bread test but I am sure they all bake their own now!).

Anyway, my main point is why target children?

I don't think it's that strange that people often die 25 miles from where they were born (or less).

I know lots of people who in retirement (or before) moved back to the area they were initiall from - with some of the living away having been overseas!

Or maybe they would start paying a decent London weighting to enable the people doing those jobs to carry on. So a nursery nurse earning 15k in Milton Keynes moves to the same job with the same nursery chain in london but earns 25k?

It would happen if the companies really couldn't get staff. Supply and demand often dictates salary.

ermm child benefit has been around a lot longer than child tax credits!

The problem with a "London weighting" is that two people doing the same job will earn greatly different amounts during their lifetime.

Eventually the Londoner can then choose to move to a larger house outside London, or take early retirement by selling the London property they've spent their extra salary on, while the person who did the same job outside London will still be in their average-sized house, working to 65 because they've earnt less during their life.

Ok, moving back is one thing, but never leaving?

There is too much of,
Ive got myself a couple of o'levels now I'll get a nice job in a bank in my town centre and move in with my high school boyfriend who has a good trade qualification. We'll get married and I'll move around the corner from my Mum and we'll do nicely on our 25k.

Never having lived anywhere else, or experienced anything else. No awareness of affluence or poverty. Vote in the General Election for whoever will slightly benefit them as have no awareness of the circumstances of anyone else.

I've ranted twice in my last few posts. Think I need a drink!

grunmpy pants - it only makes up 80% though so the other 20% comes from the childcare element then there is a fiver a week left over for us is what I meant. I get £335 for childcare but cause we cant really afford the 20% we do opposite shifts a lot to make it easier.

I can see why you are upset by the tax cut. But I do think people work hard no matter what income they have we earn 15,000 Graduate training course.

We have a holiday every year in this country.
We have a average 3 bedroom house.
We have sky.
We don't own a car.
I don't have any designer clothes or eat out.
My kids have everything other children have on much higher wages.

Therefore it is sometimes hard to understand why people on 45,000 who don't live in London are struggling so much. I suppose your houses ae in a much nicer area than ours where house prices are higher somewhere I would love to live. However I am not bitter I would in your shoes also be annoyed about cuts when there are those much better off.

sapell, why should two people doing the same job earn the same money anyway.

But then I don't think all teachers should earn the same either. Bad performance (Im not talking exams) regularly and dock their salaries or be able to sack them. good teachers should be well paid. Get rid of the bored/boring tired bad ones.

Oh, okay. But I have always thought it really weird that it's 80% only - such an irrational thing to do! Why not allow people up to x hours per week and contract with the provider directly? (Am off subject). I think my original point was something along the lines of salary not neccessarily reflecting actual take home, so 45k sounds a lot but may end up equivalent to a lower salary with tax credits iyswim?

actually I think part of the problems people have with childcare these days compared to in the past is not just with the cost of it, but of having family close by (or not if they've moved elsewhere) to help out.

Moving away isn't always a good thing.

'I wouldn't say it is a luxury to own your own home as such, but we do have a problem in the UK in that there is just no security of tenure for renters in the private sector, whereas it seems to be more normal in some other countries to rent and stay there for a long time. That's what has created the mindset that you need to own your own home for family security and why people have maybe overstretched themselves to do just that.'

Nail hitting head.

And the whole London thing.

Well, it's either a city-state or not. Either governed based on that alone or not.

Toccatanfudge - you make a great point. If it wasn't for expensive childcare costs then lots of people who earn good salaries would feel well off and not need to claim their £40 PM CTC.

How about more subsidised nursery care for children. That means less cuts impacting directly on children. However it will never happen and even now I think they are considering removing the 'free' hours from 3 years old unless you are in a 'deprived' area.

Those on £12,000 probably won't be effected.

Oh, yeah, they will!

Like tocotta and I wrote, they'll affect everyone but the super-rich.

Increase VAT, increase NI, you affect most then.

Well toccata, aren't you making an assumption that grandparents are at home and able to look after children.

What if all four grandparents are still working, 3 being highly paid professionals with no desire to give up work and look after their grandchildren.
When I was first a mum, I could have had one set next door one way and the other on the other side. Doesn't mean my childcare costs would have been affected at all. They worked the same crazy hours DH did.

Don't forget the increases in petrol prices too. Even if you don't drive a car, all the services which involve transport will go up. The cost of food goes up, due to delivery costs etc etc etc.

And yet the price of crude oil has reportedly gone down

.....Dragon, your comment that :"...I just don't buy the argument that they worked for it, so they should get to keep it: they don't need it, do they?" IS THE ABSOLUTELY DUMBEST COMMENT in revered MN history.