Single parenet benefits proposed to end when youngest child is 11 rahter than 16

[uwila]

Oh this will be popular round here.

here

onmly, that sounds hard. May be there's some work you can do sitting at a computer. I sometimes write things for example which I get paid for so there may be things you can work at with a bad back even which aren't even as stenuous as looking after the husband and children!

Xenia and Only: work you can do sitting at a computer includes Ciao! surveys, ebay selling and writing naughty stories etc. None of these pay a fortune but enough of them together kind of add up to extra income. There's also phonesex work (fi you are comfortable with the idea of doing it) which you can do while lying in bed...

i don't think thats unreasonable, but i think it should be extended for those with disabled children.

Good post anniemac

Have to agree with Soapbox but would add one thing: I have always found the fact that Child Benefit is paid to everyone regardless of
income somewhat perplexing, perhaps it's time this was reconsidered and the money re- directed to where it really is needed most (decent
nurseries, for example).

Yeah that's right if you both work full time and bring in £35k each, you are exempt from everything. Now, let's redirect your CB elsewhere too. And let me guess if you make over say £50k you won't get to use said nurseries.

How bout we deduct my childcare costs from my income before we decide I'm too wealthy to have the privildege of £116 per month. Woo hooo, that buys a lot.

Now, I wonder why people resort to oveworking underpaid au pairs? Go figure.

Whereas I would like to see the childcare voucher scheme made compulsory. In some cases a couple who are both working full time and on 40% tax bracket can claim the £100 tax benefit each. In other cases the couple are both working full time and in the 22% tax bracket and can't claim a penny.

In our case I can claim it but am only part time and on 22% tax, but DH who is on 40% tax cannot claim it whereby this would be a greater tax saving. However I am not convinced that it is right that higher tax payers should get a greater benefit which is how it works. And also possibly two parent families can claim more than one parent families. Maybe they should increase the allowance for single parent families. So they can claim more per month.

I thought means testing CB was not supposed to be efficient - ie would cost more than it saved. Not that this seems to be an issue in other areas of taxation/benefits.

I still think that maybe single parents should be allowed increased benefit. So £400 tax free instead of £243 - not sure about the admin though and whether it would be open to abuse. LOL at your human nature comment. My comments on here yesterday were definitely touched with "a poor me, I have a bad cold, I have to work and look after the children when I get home and cover for my ill colleague while I am here" outlook.

Decent nurseries (which benefit eveyone even those who don't use them) was just an example, Uwila. The money could easily be redirected towards something everyone (even those with nannies, if that's what you mean by the £50,000+ bracket) will use.

lol. I was referring to Uwila's figure and the idea that people of a certain income wouldn't use those nurseries -- I thought that's what she meant, but fifty grand wouldn't really do it, would it? Unless it was X2.

Interesting point, Bozza, I wonder what kind of money would have to be saved (i.e. how many people would not get CB) to make it efficient. Must be a govt. statistician somewhere who can make it work.

anniemac, That would be a rabbit, not a human being, wouldn't it?

My point is that people who earn a joint income of say £70 are percieved to be richand should therefore be footing the bill for the lowere earners. But, the truth is £70k is not very much once youpay for childcare.

Just off the top of my head (2 young kids):

£2000 -- childcare
£1000 -- rent
£500 -- food
£300 -- travel to work (including train tickets/car maintenance, road tax, parking, etc.)
£200 -- utilities
£150 -- council tax
£200 -- (clothes for 4 people)

£4550 per month just to get by in a little rented house and there's no travel, no entertainment, no new car, no birthday presents, no sky tv, etc.

Now what is that in an annual gross income? Somewhere around £70k? These people aren't rich.

But, if £70k is only enough to barely get by (and my sample family can not afford to buy a house), then what happens to people who make 50k, 40k, 30k? Surely they must get fed up, throw in the towel and get in the queue for benefits and housing. And as that £70 threshhold goes up, more any more can't afford to live and we have fewer and fewer supporting more and more. Where is it going to end? Raise taxes? They are too high now? Perhaps we have to jack in the NHS funding and channel that money to benefits. Is that a good thing?

Uwila - your posts are very london-centric in figures terms. Our mortgage on a 4 bed detached is much less than 1K. But our joint income is also much less than 70K.