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.

bravo lg. well said and eloquently put

Expat, for those that live off benefits for life, you say the party's over. do you really think thats true. becasue i can't see anything changing.
you think that our new government are actually going to be able to tackle this. nah. its too deep, to ingrained. part of uk mentality now, surely ?

"I don't think children 'suffer for life' if bought up by poor but happy loving people"

Oh, I'm not saying that Riven! I'm not rich myself.
I'm saying that as much money as possible should be distributed towards those in society who are bringing up kids, that having kids is not a 'lifestyle' option, and that paying for kids to have a shot is the responsibility of the entire society, not just the parents. I think that people in lg's position should have access to free childcare, or enough help so that they can work and have something left over. I'm not keen on the idea of subsidizing her mortgage, but these details can be looked at on a case by case basis: obviously where she lives she doesn'T get much for her money. I don't think single mothers should end up in the position where they can't spend any time with their babies .

These conversations are invariably tricky to resolve because you cannot (despite Xenia's best efforts) both generalize and be accurate.

As I commented before our household income is well over £45K. We are broke; why, because we choose to live in the catchment area of an excellent school - a school that caters for my boys that combine a mixture of high IQ and learning difficulties. We also choose to pay for care for my parents who are the classic low assets cash poor pensioners who get little help with vital day to day living needs. Eldest son is University material, no question. He could be one of those who makes a phenomenal contribution to society as a whole. Our income means little (in effect no) help with this. We both work, we service our debts, probably keeping the finance industry in bonuses!

We do not do holidays or drink bottled water (even my wine comes in a box!).

Should we get state hep, no I do not think we should...should my parents and son get more state help. Yes, a million times yes. In turn this would benefit us.

Should Riven and her family get more help (sorry to point at you Riven), again a million times yes. Should my friend who is currently going through a divorce and has not worked for years; partly due to her husband's income and partly due to ongoing and debilitating depression get state help? Well actually i think she should but focused on NHS counselling and good back to work assistance.

That is the trouble; a system that truly responds to individual need and assessment on a case by case basis is unmanageable (and frankly not affordable). I don't know the answers I really don't; and to be honest I get quite angry with some of the black and white simplistic generalized statements here.

Yes, Ob, I really do see it changing. It can't be that engrained because, although I was not in the UK at the time, apparently, many people living off benefits for life is a relatively new things, it just may be that some of those people reproduced early, so there are now generations of folks who have lived off benefits for life and have never worked (SIL never has, nor did her ex-partner. She is 31).

At the least, I think this government might freeze benefit pay outs, not increase them. And do that before they freeze pension payouts, the latter of which would probably be very unpopular and cost them far more votes.

They may also take measures such as not increasing child tax credits or income support payments to people who have more children once they've been on benefits a certain length of time.

Not saying it's right or wrong, I don't really know what is, tbh.

But I do think they'll change things.

They'll have to. There are going to be too many people age 65+ for there to be millions more of working age and able to work who don't for any government to afford not to change.

There's already a huge pension black hole. Pensioners tend to be quite a vocal group of folks, too.

I don't believe full employment is achievable any more, I think they'll go back to the post war ideas of basically pushing women out of the workforce to allow jobs for the boys.

Although in this recession more men than women have lost jobs actually and plenty of men have had to learn to change nappies and mop the kitchen floor.

lg, don't worry. You see him at weekends before you know it he will be older and not need expensive childcare and it will be fine. the period when children need lots of time and care doesn't really last that long in the context of a 40+ year career.

On the interesting issues of are children a lifestyle choice like having a dog or an expensive hobby and do we need more... arguably we need people like I am to have more children whose children will not be on benefits rather than the poor to breed but I doubt tax breaks for the rich who have babies decide whether one adds to a family or not. In France there is substantial tax relief particualrly if you have big families I think. In most countries the more developed they become and the more educated women are the fewer children they choose to have on the whole except I suppose there's probably an increase at the very upper end of income where you can afford a bigger family (and of course at the bottom where more children mean more people to work int he fields or yield benefits from).

and why do you say the rich "have children" while the poor "breed" like animals..

Accidental. I have a lot of children. I don't mind anyone using the word breed about me and I respect animals so have no problems if likened to one.

It is more likely that the children of those on benefits will repeat their parents' lives than those on my sort of income - ergo a system which makes it very different from those who have never worked for generations to have a lot of children whilst encouraging people on over say £100k or £50 k a year to do so is probably better for the nation.

no no no..DD is enough for me

sorry Xenia - the word just triggered my automatic anti-Daily Mail hackles!!

I'd say better education for those poor children. Like private school level because then they wont repeat the cycle.Thats a good ivestment. The children of the rich already have massive advantages.

I agree with you to a point the problem is their parents in so so many cases.
The reason private schools work is nothing really to do with the teachers or facilities it's down to the fact that if you are paying £8k per child you open their book bag and read, you stand over them whilst they do their homework, you go to the three parents evenings per year and respect the teacher when they discipline your child.

They used to get the good ones into grammar school but even that was never a perfect system. A lot of damage is done by age 5 and never made up. I suppose if you went back to ther 1950s girls who got pregnant out of wedlock were forced to give up their babies for adoption - I am not sure we want to return to that though. That was obviously one way - shame on the family for the girl breaking social mores.

Well plenty of men were and are forced to marry the girl but you're right paternalistic misogynistic cultures heap shame on women.

See, I still don't find Xenia smug.

I disagree on some points, but that's different from finding smugness.

On other points I do agree, but most of all, as she is a Tory supporter, and that is no reason to apologise, anymore than I should for being a liberal, this is what might be in the pipeline.

She's not talking about people who are disabled and/or carers and too ill to work.

That's a separate discussion entirely and should stay that way or nothing gets accomplished.

But about people who are, for whatever reason, not in work and dependent on the state for their entire sustenance.

The Tories only narrowly missed gaining a majority, so there were a significant number of voters who number among their supporters and who turned up to vote. And we had record turnout.

That's how it is now. We can moan about it from now till 2015, it makes no difference, this is a coalition government with two men so power-hungry, there's little chance they will let their coalition fail.

What's to do now is try to plan as we can and have a good think about where, for you, the line is when you go to your MP if it's crossed or take other political action.

I'm a single mother of a large family just like other single mothers on benefits I suppose. A lot of people wuold have to cease using my services for me to be destitute and there'll be equity in the house if times were hard and I suppose people I know who would help me and my needs are pretty modest although I certainly would not like to take the children out of school and lose our home. I suppose the main thing I've bought the children is a good education so I would hope that could stand them in good stead but these are all fascinating issues and I am sure it is no fun at all to have hardly enough to eat.

I'm certainly not proposing getting rid of benefits. In fact above I suggested £200 per adult whether you work or not and abolition of all benefits - the universal guaranteed income if we could afford it.

People should also look on recessions as business opportunities too - what do people need in recession. How can you provide it etc etc.

See, I don't see her posts as writing off the children of the working poor.

We are, too, thesecond.

It's just that now, we're all going to have to get more resourceful.

Because they're going to cut, cut, cut.

They say it's because they have to. They're probably right.

There need to be some paradigm shifts across the board. For relatively high earners, it's the possibility that there will be no government help. For the working poor and those on benefits, that that help will be limited. For pensioners, who knows, a VAT hike at the least.

I guess we'll have to wait and see when the budget is released.