Child benefit cuts

GhallTN6

Is that tax free as well.. 26k a year, to earn that in real terms you'd have to earn what, 35k, for sitting on your fat arse whatching sky!

sheepsteeth

About bloody time as well...
Plus I'm pretty sure that once in afghanistan, cutting your hair becomes a low priority!

Mr Cameron announced that the tax-free allowance will increase from £14.51 per day to £29.02 and payments will be backdated to 6 May 2010.

Therefore, from 6 May 2010, Service personnel will receive £5,280.88 tax-free for a 182-day (six-month) tour in an appropriate operational area.

Payment is in the form of a single lump sum paid on completion of operational service. The first payments at the new rate will be made in July.[/code]

GhallTN6

IcarusGreen

The wife is getting a little pissed off....as you can imagine.

That's why I left, My military career wasn't as inportant as my wife and future kids in my opinion.. (although I do miss it)

Thewaylander

we are all behind the goverment bar one or two of us..

Cut them off muhahaha(my semi evil laugh)

cee

ex-pat scot wrote:

Going to hit me / my family hard.

What grates is that we are being hugely penalised for opting for the "one at work; one at home" choice. The "two at work part-time" alternative would make much more financial sense to us now.
One earning £50k - tax & NI approx £15,000
Two part-timers each earning £25k - tax & NI approx £4,000 x 2 = £8,000

hmmm..

therein lies the myth....

exclude NI for the moment...

on 50K...you pay 9930 tax per year.
2 * 25K..they pay 7410 tax per year..(3705 each @ 20% of 18525)

after the 40% tax threshold...NI contributions effectively slide down to 0 percent...

so while the individual will pay more NI...
together...the 2 on 25K will pay more NI than the individual on 50...

it equates to around 6 grand for the indiviual on 50K, but 8 grand in total for the pair on 25K

so in total....deductions for an individual on 50K are roughly the same as 2 individuals on 25K

remember NI is on a crazy sliding scale...it isn't just a percentage over the whole salary...

sure...the 50K earner will lose out on the Cb while the household on 50K will not...but the difference is nowhere near as much as some commentators want to make us think...

I wonder what the commentators agenda is.....

Thewaylander

There trying to make us think they are being hard done by.

They aren't massivly, I would say they should be happy they have acheived high earning positions if the are career orientated, but Also should take responsabilty that they have the means to live.

Daz555

cee wrote:

ex-pat scot wrote:

Going to hit me / my family hard.

What grates is that we are being hugely penalised for opting for the "one at work; one at home" choice. The "two at work part-time" alternative would make much more financial sense to us now.
One earning £50k - tax & NI approx £15,000
Two part-timers each earning £25k - tax & NI approx £4,000 x 2 = £8,000

hmmm..

therein lies the myth....

exclude NI for the moment...

on 50K...you pay 9930 tax per year.
2 * 25K..they pay 7410 tax per year..(3705 each @ 20% of 18525)

after the 40% tax threshold...NI contributions effectively slide down to 0 percent...

so while the individual will pay more NI...
together...the 2 on 25K will pay more NI than the individual on 50...

it equates to around 6 grand for the indiviual on 50K, but 8 grand in total for the pair on 25K

so in total....deductions for an individual on 50K are roughly the same as 2 individuals on 25K

remember NI is on a crazy sliding scale...it isn't just a percentage over the whole salary...

sure...the 50K earner will lose out on the Cb while the household on 50K will not...but the difference is nowhere near as much as some commentators want to make us think...

I wonder what the commentators agenda is.....

http://listentotaxman.com/index.php

Suggests that the total contribution for a £50k earner is around £14k and that the total for a £25k earner is around £6k.

cee

Daz555
Yeah...

As far as I am aware....after some reading about NI being 0 after 40K...Its not working out the NI correctly.

it assumes a percentage over the whole wage...after 40K its basically 0..

so the difference in NI makes my calc higher....

thus the difference..

askthetaxman? about tax..fine...about NI...not so much

IcarusGreen

Put them in Hostels, give them:

food vouchers for Aldi
clothes vouchers for charity shops
bus passes

and that is ALL.

Daz555

cee wrote:

Daz555
Yeah...

As far as I am aware....after some reading about NI being 0 after 40K...Its not working out the NI correctly.

it assumes a percentage over the whole wage...after 40K its basically 0..

so the difference in NI makes my calc higher....

thus the difference..

askthetaxman? about tax..fine...about NI...not so much

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm

Tis 44 grand now. The calc on the site is not that far off then.

CraigXXL

IcarusGreen wrote:

Put them in Hostels, give them:

food vouchers for Aldi
clothes vouchers for charity shops
bus passes

and that is ALL.

You're on my way of thinking with this. Vouchers for everything in conjunction with picture ID card for the benefit claimant to use them so it makes it harder to exchange for cash. The vouchers wouldn't be able to be used for alcohol or cigs, just set amounts for food, housing, energy and other essentials no luxuries. They are reserved for those that earn their keep or too disabled not to.

d87heaven

CraigXXL wrote:

IcarusGreen wrote:

Put them in Hostels, give them:

food vouchers for Aldi
clothes vouchers for charity shops
bus passes

and that is ALL.

You're on my way of thinking with this. Vouchers for everything in conjunction with picture ID card for the benefit claimant to use them so it makes it harder to exchange for cash. The vouchers wouldn't be able to be used for alcohol or cigs, just set amounts for food, housing, energy and other essentials no luxuries. They are reserved for those that earn their keep or too disabled not to.

Put who in hostels? People on benefits ?
What about the guy that has worked for 40 years then gets made redundant, can't find work, loses his house, can't afford a car etc etc?
What about the guy who has spent 30 years in the building trade but now can hardly do his job as he is worn out with a bad back and dodgy knees. (and in the future has another 24 years before he can retire at 70)?
What about the mother who has worked 2 jobs to keep afloat as the father doesn't pay his dues and gets laid off due to cost cutting measures?
These are the people who should be helped and supported. But as it isshe/ he will get pretty much the same help as a person who has contributed nothing and quite probably never will.
And upon retirement the lazy will be able to claim the same the same as someone who has worked. Not to mention that the free council house won't be sold off to pay for the care in thier old age. I think until the people who dream up these things have to also live thier lives by them then nothing will ever change. Can't imagine the likes of cameron will retire at 70 on £156 a week and having the house sold to pay for care.

stumpyjon

What about the guy that has worked for 40 years then gets made redundant, can't find work, loses his house, can't afford a car etc etc?

And that's one of the big issues isn't it. If you've supported yourself the government expects you to continue supporting yourself when it all goes wrong despite all the money you've paid in. We've had five redundancies between the two of us and apart from basic JSA we've had zero support from the government, each time we've managed to find work again (sometimes after a fairly long period of time) and sort ourselves again.

Luckily / sensibly we only borrowed on our mortage 3.5 times one salary, if we'd done what many people have done and borrowed as much as possible we'd probably have gone bust. We've now for the first time in our life got an overdraft which need to pay off and all I hear is how well off we are....

Well all can say is based on the way the state has failed to support us in any meaningful way when we needed it my first priority going forward is to look after me and my family. I will do my uptmost to avoid paying any more tax (legally) than I have to and as far as charitable giving goes ha...

We're all in this together, yes if the hard working people are paying and the less well off are doing the spending.

Oh and I don't buy the I should be grateful for the decent income I now have, I work bl**dy hard for my money and there aren't many others I know that couldn't or wouldn't do what I do. I work hard and expect to have a better standard of living than people doing less demanding jobs. Otherwise what is the point. We're not all equally and don't all deserve the same.

Oh and bring back the workhouse for the truly feckless, make them work for their gruel, and the vouchers is a really good idea to. £ 800 cash maternity grant to go and spend at Mamas & Papas (or bargin booze). IF need styate support it should be done in the most cost effective way possible, need a cot and pram then if you want the state to cough up you get the NHS glasses equivalent, not some blinged up designer pram.

CraigXXL

People who have paid into the system should get repaid when the need it. The builder who isn't able to work should be supported as now disabled. Pensioners and disabled should get more out of the system than they currently do. The work shy should get the bare minimum. Someone has worked 40 years and then made redundant should be given more help in finding work or additional benefits to help through the immediate short fall until they are able to sort their finances out.
I agree with Stumpjon that people should be more responsible for their finances rather than borrowing as much as they can then blaming someone else for their debts.
Those that don't work shouldn't be rewarded for it but instead given he minimum to live, no luxuries. If they want what the working person has then they need to work. Once people start appreciating that you have to work for things then they will start to respect themselves as well as others again and society starts to improve.

Anonymous

the vouchers thing is a really good idea.

im going to pretend i invented it.

MountainMonster

d87heaven wrote:

CraigXXL wrote:

IcarusGreen wrote:

Put them in Hostels, give them:

food vouchers for Aldi
clothes vouchers for charity shops
bus passes

and that is ALL.

You're on my way of thinking with this. Vouchers for everything in conjunction with picture ID card for the benefit claimant to use them so it makes it harder to exchange for cash. The vouchers wouldn't be able to be used for alcohol or cigs, just set amounts for food, housing, energy and other essentials no luxuries. They are reserved for those that earn their keep or too disabled not to.

Put who in hostels? People on benefits ?
What about the guy that has worked for 40 years then gets made redundant, can't find work, loses his house, can't afford a car etc etc?
What about the guy who has spent 30 years in the building trade but now can hardly do his job as he is worn out with a bad back and dodgy knees. (and in the future has another 24 years before he can retire at 70)?
What about the mother who has worked 2 jobs to keep afloat as the father doesn't pay his dues and gets laid off due to cost cutting measures?
These are the people who should be helped and supported. But as it isshe/ he will get pretty much the same help as a person who has contributed nothing and quite probably never will.
And upon retirement the lazy will be able to claim the same the same as someone who has worked. Not to mention that the free council house won't be sold off to pay for the care in thier old age. I think until the people who dream up these things have to also live thier lives by them then nothing will ever change. Can't imagine the likes of cameron will retire at 70 on £156 a week and having the house sold to pay for care.

This was where my income assesment I mentioned earlier comes into play. If you've been working hard your whole life, have been responsible with yxour finances and got off your butt to do something, that will show in the assesment, and you get approved. But if you havn't worked much, or never pay taxes and only live off the doll, then you get terminated/not approved.

That way the people who need it get what they are entitled to, and the leeches get nothing. It's their problem if they don'T want to work, they won't eat or have a roof over there head. Not my problem in anyway.

Thewaylander

See this is how i feel about it too.

I don't earn huge amounts but I pay my taxes support myself and try not to overstretch, have a nice little pension going ready to help when i retire eventually. I don't expect help as there are people who need it more than I, as per the examples above.

But i certainly don't want the work shy plebs getting it as they do now, it's a total waist.

JohnKempStarley

This original post has certainly fuelled a lot of debate. It started with child allowance being cut. I personally have always felt that this should be removed from parents and invested directly into "child related" needs such as schools, healthcare etc. I find most people I work with who are in receipt of such a perk change their cars every 2-3years and have very nice holidays abroad, have had conservatories/extensions on their house and the obligatory decking . If they have disposable income like this then their priorities should be their children. I assume they have their children out of love rather than creating an automaton for use in the future of our state. The argument governments tend to use is that of creating a future workforce and people to sustain the pension system etc. Unfortunately if we all wish to live longer then we have a complicated issue of how do we fund the older generation with say 4 generations living in parallel. Starts to get a little complex and encroaches on rather ethical issues. I'd prefer a sustainable population for england of about 5 million like new zealand
Perhaps we should go back to the days of not educating people to a healthy lifestyle and those that instinctively choose it shall live longest. The others won't be around to know any different . Sadly at the company I work at they've refused the bike to work scheme but have introduced a child care tax scheme to rub salt in my wounds! .

Anonymous

Here's something I just thought of, spurred by some of the posts here.
Some of my friends who are living on benefits find it very hard to get back into work, because in order to make it worthwhile, they'd have to find jobs that mean they're never home to look after their kids, which means they have to pay for a day care center or similar.
Unfortunately, that cost kind of puts them back at square one.
So... what if instead of just handing out cash, the money was instead used to fund NHS-style daycare centres, to encourage, or allow parents to get back to full time work?

d87heaven

Are you talking about free childcare?

Anonymous

I guess I am, yeah. Why?
At least free nurseries.

d87heaven

Difficult one.

For people who have worked and fallen on hard times then I don't see why not.

For peopl ewho have contributed nothing then why should they get free child care when hardworking people have to pay?

On the other hand they may have decided that living their life on benefits is not what they want and they want to better themselves.

How about child care that is repayable over a period of time via tax deductions?

I must confess I am slightly confused about why people want kids then stick them in a nursery whilst they work. Why have kids and then pay someone else to bring them up?

Anonymous

I'm confused, d87heaven. Are you saying that everyone who has kids should be expected to stop working?

See, there's people like a good friend of mine. He unfortunately lost his partner over Christmas, the mother of his child.
Now he's got to look after their daughter, and is in a bit of a catch-22, job wise.
If he takes a job on, he'll lose his child benefits, meaning he'll have to pay for a lot more (at the moment, he's in a council house as well). So, until he's earning a good hefty wage, he just won't be able to afford to pay his way, what with needing to pay for nursery care, or a childminder to take his daugter to school (she's very young, and only goes for half days, about twice a week or so at the moment).
BUT, he doesn;t want to be living on state handouts, and is a "proud" man. He would much rather be earning his own way in life.
Trouble is, there's very few jobs round here that will pay a man enough to run a household and bring up a daughter on his own.

d87heaven

Im not saying people should stop working but I can't work out why people have kids then pay someone else to bring them up. Maybe I am harking back to the days of stay at home mums etc. Im not saying its wrong, I just don't get it. Doe s that make sense?

As for your Mate. Thats a terrible situation for him to be in. If he was working before then I would say its a prime example of someone needing some assistance to keep his family going.
TBH I don't have the answers, no one scheme seems to fit all. Especially as long as you get people playing the system.

lovepasty

I must confess I am slightly confused about why people want kids then stick them in a nursery whilst they work. Why have kids and then pay someone else to bring them up?

My kids go to nursary two days a week whilst my wife goes to work, they love it, its good for social their development and great for them making friends in the village. Its not really paying someone else to bring them up.

Some nursary is already govt funded, children over 3 get 5 free sessions a week, this works out at just over a day and a half...this is a universal benefit a bit like CB.

You can also claim tax relief for nursary (if your company and carer is in the scheme). Up to £243 a month as a pre tax deduction on on your salary, for me being (just) a 40%er is equates to around £90 saving.

So there is already help out there to support working, but it tends to drive part time (which helps the unemployed figures look good) as it helps make the first couple of days affordable but after that the nursary bill really racks up.

Once you've used up the help, with two kids nursary can be around £80 a day...so you need to be earning before tax around £120 a day before you start ot make a profit, let alone making it worthwhile.

d87heaven

Is this a blanket thing. No matter what you earn you can claim? Everyone gets the same etc

lovepasty

Free nursary sessions and tax relief in the form of vouchers? yes although re the vouchers you need to be working and paying tax (and your company needs to be in the scheme I think)

Vouchers benefit the higher earners more, basically you can claim up to £243 (each, a couple can both get this) and the money is deducted from you salary on a monthly basis before any tax is paid, and you are send vouchers (worth the £243) towards your nursary bill so....

a 40% tax person would have paid around £90 tax on this amount
a 25% tax person would have £60 tax

So higher tax payers benefit more from this than lower rate tax payers

d87heaven

This country is mental.

supersonic

In an effort to make the system fair we have this vastly complicated system with miles of red tape. Unfortunately it is still flawed, with loopholes and traps. Mad, indeed it is.

weeksy59

d87heaven wrote:

Im not saying people should stop working but I can't work out why people have kids then pay someone else to bring them up..

Simple economics. I'd love my missus to give up work full time, however she has to do 3 days a week as without it we wouldn't be able to live happily.

d87heaven

For what reason would you like her to give up work?