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 think that the point of keeping an army is that you never know when you will be threatened and if you are you can't just magic one out of nowhere. I know that it seems like we live in a relatively safe world now and since the end of the Cold War we don't really need to protect ourselves in the same way, but history has shown that sometimes countries can change and become a treat and we never can foresee when this might happen. In the meantime you keep them occupied with emergencies at home and peace keeping missions abroad.

Interesting points Sakura, what a pity you are wrong on all counts.
The Uk military is smaller than that of Japan, and way smaller than that of Germany.

195,000 239,000 250,000

respectively.

But dont let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh ?

It's much harder to start from scratch and train the Armed Forces if we had to respond to a major situation. Far easier to maintain a professional Army/Navy/Air Force and expand as required because the skill and knowledge base is still there.

Also, there is the simple reason that our Forces are well-regarded and allow us, as a government/country, to punch above our weight in diplomatic terms. Reduce our commitment to such organisations as the UN and NATO and we would see a drop in our influence on the international stage.

jscot, you talk a lot of sense.
I would like to add one thing

a lot of the horrors we see in the world are the aftermath of wars and hostile armies rampaging across the land. If I had a magic wand I would wave it and that type of horror would never be visited on anyone ever again. But I dont.
So I am prepared to pay, through general taxation, for an army that will keep the enemies, militias and thugs away from me and mine.

People make a lot of assumptions about the Forces (not just the Army, don't forget the RAF and the Navy) because of what they see in the press.

It's not just about high profile wars, I can't say a lot but my husband was involved in a huge UK based security project and I can't even tell you on how many occassions cities in the UK had crises averted by the MOD whilst you all went about your daily business.And that's what they should do -protect the state and the people, so that you can get on with your lives without fear.

(or get home from Calais without an flight)

That argument OP is completely unvalidated. I am a middle income earner or high earner whatever you call it and I do not spend my money buying cappucinos. Quite the opposite actually, I usually dont have any allowance for this after mortgage payments,household bills etc have gone out.

I am in my early 30's and only recently have we managed to buy a house thanks to student loans etc so why should I be penalised for earning that amount of money. I would not class myself as rich by any means. If you earn 21k or whatever it is you said that is your choice to earn that money. I wanted to earn more than that and worked bloody hard at uni and even now to earn it so why should I have more cuts to subsidise you? We have three children and one who is 10 months and goes to nursery. That costs us nearly 1k a month so losing out on the little tax credits we could get will be disastrous to us. OUr mortgage is massive because we are new homebuyers, not because we have a massive house. We live in a standard three bed terrace in London. I could go on but them moral is dont pass comments based only on your situation because everyone's situation in life is different - whether they earn 12, 20 or indeed 45k

It's all a question of who should subsidise whom. At one extreme a state would pay everyone the same - doctors and dustbin men as they tried in China for a while and didn't of course work or tax people so much everyone ends up with about the same which remove the incentive to work hard if rates are 50 - 83% as they used to be at upper rates and another 15% on top of your 83 on your investment income - that is in effect confiscation to make sure everyone is about the same as everyone else.

It seems fairly clear that tax credits will be cut for the better off and VAT will go up but we'll see and that last one won't help the inflation figures.

Anyone who can't afford expensive coffee drinks need not worry though because they aren't good for you anyway so in a sense you're spared the damage they do you.

mumof3-it is not someone's choice to earn 'only' £21k, people take what jobs they can, even if they are part time/ low paid/ below their skill level. There aren't enough £30/£40/£50k+ or whatever jobs for everyone who wants them.

Lots of people who worked "bloody hard" at uni are in jobs at this level, it is a question of demand and supply in the labour market, something the individual is not in control of.

If you are so well qualified and hard working I'm sure you could get a job in a less expensive part of the UK. It is your choice to live in London, why should everyone else be paying tax to fund your (expensive) choice?

So if mumof3 is entitled to tax credits she should not get it because the rest of "you/us" should not have to "fund" her choice to live in London (nevermind that she works...)? Are you saying that only people living outside of London are entitled to benefits? This Londoner bashing is getting really tiring could people just give it a rest? And yes for the record I live in London and yes it is my choice and no I do not get any benefits. I work full-time and even though (or perhaps especially because?) I live in London I suppose you are not against me contributing to others getting benefits by paying taxes?

I'm a renter, why should I subsidise you, mum3, because you chose to buy in an ultra-expensive area? Or your choice to have 3 kids?

Why should childfree people who earn the same or pensioners subsidise your choices then?

Ah expat.
you put your finger on the nub of the philosophical question.
Are Children a benefit to society, the future, who must be nurtured by the collective for the future good of society.

Or are they a personal and selfish indulgence that are the financial responsibility of the parents alone ?

a deep question

It's a valid question plenty are going to be asking when their taxes go up, Old.

The issue of mortgages in places like London is another one.

So you are saying that because she lives in London she should not get the benefit she is entitled to? If she lived in Brighton you would have no problem?

Mingg, i think the point was that peeps in the capital need benefits more than the rest, because their costs are so much higher

but maybe they have a choice about where they live

I'm saying, Mingg, that this government may likely decide she is entitled to no benefit. No matter where she lives.

I agree with both of you. Some people, most perhaps, could live somewhere else. What annoys me is that if you say you live in London the standard response is "it is your choice, move somewhere else and stop complaining" rather than people just accepting other people's experience as that, their experience. I am not putting this all that well but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

as i said , up a few
this is actually a very deep question, that goes beyond tax, credits and london.

in my very humble opinion

Agree on that one too. Without children there won't be a future but then should for example childless pensioners care about that?

Childless pensioners should be worrying about that more than anyone else, who do they expect will be caring for them ?
All the money in the world is no good to you when you are old and ill, then suddenly the value of other and their children might hit home.

It won't be the kids taking care of them though unless they live a very long time

Not read the whole thread but...

DH & I live a fairly modest life style, we unfortunately have a lot of debt which wasn't due to lavish holidays or sexy sports cars, DH was fecking stupid and gambled a load of money. So as a consequence, we have a huge debt to pay off.

DH & I were earning 40/45k a year and it was keeping us ahead of the debt.

DH was made redundant in January. Jobs are scarce. We have payment protection on the mortgage and loan, so he cant do a minimum wage job as we'd have to pay full loan, mortgage and childcare costs, which his minimum wage would not cover. Its an odd logic, I know. He's been looking for work since Jan, managed to get some work in Feb, so been on the dole in March and April.

We don't expect anything from the government, other than dole which keeps us in a position to be able to buy food. However, because I "earn too much" then DH will not get dole after 6 months if he is still unemployed. Payment protection etc only lasts for a year during the course of the loan/mortgage.

It feel a bit of a kick in the teeth to know that he has worked solidly for the last 12 years, but it doesn't amount to much when there is supposed to be support. And it also smarts of bit to know that people will judge in that, if DH is fortuante enough to get another good job (low likely hood at the moment) that because we earn "too much" that we wouldn't be "allowed" to complain about a higher tax rate, particularly in a time where we'd appreciate not being tax loads so we can get back on our feet again.

mingg- my post of aeons ago on this thread blamed the govt for us having an economy so centralised in london. It isnt an individual's fault that so many of the well paid jobs are in london but why should people who limit their earning potential by living outside london subsidise those who do make that choice?

Unlike having kids, it isnt a choice which benefits society.

In other countries eg France, housing benefit doesnt vary across regions, everyone gets the same. State subsidies of high land values in london is just a roundabout way of lining the aristocracy's pockets (eg the Duke of Westminster).

And I was commenting on your "It is your choice to live in London, why should everyone else be paying tax to fund your (expensive) choice?" (also works both ways surely?). I don't get any benefits so I do not know how these vary from town to town but doubt that anyone who has a mortgage and is working gets housing benefit? Most of DoW land is retail btw

hb is only paid to tenants, thus profiting landlords in london charging vv high rents (comared to the rest of the UK)

Sorry not read the whole thread but just learned of the plans to cut child benefit and yes. You are being unreasonable.
I don't see how I can reduce our budget any further to make me the person swimming in the ambrosia pool that is fed by this mythical great wage that means you gambol free as a foal.
South East possibly the operative word here. I might have seen a post about London weighting. Not sure I am too p'd off about random posts across all news boards going 'the middle classes don't need child benefit.' DON'T TELL ME I DIDN'T NEED IT. I won't be listening, I will be adding to the next house price crash. Whilst knitting my children's shoes. We'll survive. JUST don't tell me we didn't need it.