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.

Why is it perceived as worse me (as a WOHM) getting childcare vouchers and a piddly amount of TC, than a SAHM whose family receives benefits because they are on a low income. There is no reason IMO why either of these groups shouldn't receive the monies that they are currently receiving.

I find it very odd, that after years of society encouraging women to go out to work, it is now potentially being seen as a 'luxury' or even worse, selfish. Bizarre.

As Pocketmonster said, if I stopped working, there would be less Tax and NI being paid, compared to which the 'benefits' I receive are a drop in the ocean. If I was to rise to the bait of 4Madboys, I might say that it is a luxury to be a SAHM and not pay any NI !

yes it must be better for the economy to have MORE people employed in the long run.

but thatcher didnt see it that way and she got rid of subsidised chilcare, which put loads of people out of work and onto benefit, esp single mums! will this government do the same thing?

undercoermutha i DIDNT say it was a luxury and nor did mint, we were just saying that it could perhaps be percieved as a luxury, i have said that it makes economic sense to help people to work, we are just questioning if there are cuts, then where will they be, what counts as fair cuts, tho fair is a shite word.#

non of it is fair, i am just wondering where the gov will decide to make its cuts and i asked what i did as i got the impression from reading this thread and others that people were struggling to work and pay for childcare, i wondered why they chose to do so and there are many valid reasons to do so that i hadnt thought of as they dont apply to me.

and fwiw i have previously paid tax and ni and until recently continued to pay a ni top up, we now have a private pension scheme that my partner and i pay into so we shouldnt have to rely on a state pension.

I recently sold my house, we rented it out for a while. We paid the full asking at the height of the boom. When we rented our house out we were making a loss on the mortage.

As I said above we could not buy our house , we could buy a dull new build up the road with a boxy garden and tiny rooms, our housing expenses would double and we would need to find at least £25K deposit. I would rather stay where I am in my beautiful house and put 25K and all the money we would save on an extortionate mortgage in the bank.

and when i say percieved as a luxury i dont mean by myself, i have friends that will suffer if they lose subsidised chilcare, it will hit them hard. i mean that the GOV may and probably will see it as aluxury. like thatcher wrongly did.

I'm intregued by all the people saying it's cheaper to rent than pay a mortgage! Anyone else in the SE able to confirm that around here renting is more expensive? Or do I just live in some kind of weird twilight zone part of the SE?!

And where has the OP gone?

Suited the Thatcher govt to have lots of people unemployed, it was cheaper for them to pay millions in dole than it was to try and help British industry preserve jobs and manufacturing.

thanks mint you put it more clearly than me!

see these debate all become about taking sides, which sucks, the reality is that as parents we are all in the same boat, wanting to do what is best for our own families, and hoping that the government will help support us if necessary.

sadly i dont think the tories give a flying fuck about most average families, esp if they are not married, single parents, middle or low income etc, we just do not figure in their radar.

no i am southeast ish, norwich and our mortgage is FAR cheaper than renting, i think it really depends on where you live tho.

and actually re childcare vouchers, my two year old is set to start a two mornings a week at preschool once he is three next march, that will ONLY happen if i get the vouchers and even then we have to top it up a bit, i would maybe get a little job then but i will have a new baby to look after! if i didnt then i would have started work then or at least done voluntary work so i have something to start puttting on my cv.

why should hard working families always be targeted, i don't consider a joint family income of 45k a high wage, i have 3 jobs and my dh works full time, we get the minimum tax credit and child benefit and that's the only extra. We have a large mortgage one old car, no fancy holidays, but my dc do have music/ sports lessons etc. we both work hard to provide for our children. I have always thought that child benefit should only be paid out for a set number of children, then if you choose to have over that number that is at your own expense, that would save the government a fair wack I'm sure.

The most commonly used definition of low income is a household income that is 60% or less of the average (median) British household income in that year.

Can't really work out what the median income is - couldn't be bothered to google. But say it's £45k for argument's sake, then it would work out that household incomes of less than £27k would fall within the definition.

crap have just realised the time, and need to put the toddler in bed, the past few days he has been getting up at 4:30am!! beastly child, so phaps tomorrow he will now sleep in........i can hope right?

i shall come back to this thread another day phaps, i dont normally use mumsnet much but there have been a few interesting threads of late

see thats one thing i dont like about not working, the fact that i have been to uni and studied and you dont really get to use all your mental capacities when looking after young children, as fab as humf and ben and hollys little kingdom, lego and pokemon are it is nice to talk about rl life grown up stuff!

Never heard of that idea tootyflooty but like it - in fact think it is excelent over 4 kids and you pay for the additionals yourself - good idea,

working mums always get pilloried on mn.made into social pariahs stereotyped as negligent,absent and avaricious

but how would you decide what is a 'fair' number of children to have tooty? and what about those that have accidental pregnancies etc, should they be expected to terminate?

adn YES there is contraception but it doesnt always work for everyone and we really dont live in an ideal world, so if you dont give cb to those with more than say 3 kids? it will be the children that suffer and surely the point in subsidising childcare etc is so that the children dont suffer?

i dont like that there are going to be cuts, and i think its hugely unfair that it seems to be families, schools, health care etc that is ALWAYS targeted first, ffs get rid of nuclear weapons!

we are all in for a rough ride unfortunately.

Yes annie - all our friends who own are playing a lot less on their mortgages than we are on rent in greater london - but thats because they have been owners for ten years. We cant buy something our family would fit in now as first time buyers as we would need at least 50k deposit.

scottish i dont spend enough time on mumsnet to have seen that working mums always get pilloried, there are lots of groups that do and tbh you cant win, i have been told that being a sahm i am WASTING my education. i quite often get asked when i am going back to work, because staying at home doesnt seem to count. We ALL do what is right for OUR OWN families and that is all we can do, and the reality is that ALL parents should support each other in whatever decisions we make.

Listen, if one of you mentions breastfeeding, I've won MN bingo on this thread...

the classic line i have been told actually is that as i am a sahm, i may as well become a childminder if all i want to do is look after children.... cos thats all i do....

oh hang around maybe a precious moments mama will rock up and entertain us all

tehtersend i HAVE already mentioned bfeeding it was one of the reasons that i stayed at home rather than dp as my boys were a bit breast obsessed and wouldnt take a bottle!

ds4 was bottlefed from 4mths so having done both i would say that there dont appear to be any differences, apart from to my ego as i hated stopping bfeeding but had to as i was hospitalised for post natal psychosis. its something i will always beat myself up over, but ds4 is a happy healthy little boy