The poor breeding

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

See, DDD, I disagree with your first points. I own a small cottage in Essex, not big enough for a child, me and said child's father. I currently rent a room in a shared house, and the majority of my savings are earmarked for a house. I am doing fairly well, but not well enough to support a child and it's not the right point in my career to have one.

And I really don't think I'm anywhere near as posh as you think I am.

You have the choice and its not for me to say you could do it now or not. I think you can.

I know people with 25grand get £250,000 3 bed house and raise 2 kids where the joint house hold income is £50,000 - £70,000.

I've known people to do it with a lot less - like half that income and a 1 - 2 bed flat.

Its all doable. Whether the person wants to do it that way is the issue.

A cottage sounds nice.

It's a case of cutting your cloth to suit. I'm sure people who earn even more than LiT :shock:* still think things are a bit tight.

just in case, that was meant very much tongue in cheek

lost_in_thought

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

See, DDD, I disagree with your first points. I own a small cottage in Essex, not big enough for a child, me and said child's father. I currently rent a room in a shared house, and the majority of my savings are earmarked for a house. I am doing fairly well, but not well enough to support a child and it's not the right point in my career to have one.

And I really don't think I'm anywhere near as posh as you think I am.

You have the choice and its not for me to say you could do it now or not. I think you can.

I know people with 25grand get £250,000 3 bed house and raise 2 kids where the joint house hold income is £50,000 - £70,000.

I've known people to do it with a lot less - like half that income and a 1 - 2 bed flat.

Its all doable. Whether the person wants to do it that way is the issue.

A cottage sounds nice.

It's a case of cutting your cloth to suit. I'm sure people who earn even more than LiT :shock:* still think things are a bit tight.

just in case, that was meant very much tongue in cheek

More than me?! MORE? :shock:

:P

DonDaddyD

I strive to earn more than LiT's.

Then I'll take on the Greg's!

Then I too can slap poor people across the face with money!

Mwahhhahahahahah!

<<Taps fingers together..>>

rick_chasey

LiT what do you do?

HF stuff? Investment analyst or whatever?

Sc00bs

Nope w1 I didn't say I was leaving. You should perhaps try reading what others post?

I asked mods to pls ban - you or me. I'd prefer it if it weren't me...

I made no contradiction, I did say I don't doubt it happens - note I didn't make a ridiculous statement like 'people have more kids to have benefits' and expect this not to be quibbled.

I know of you only what I've read on here, namely you love a good row and your tone is condescending to the extreme.

I agree Paulie W - very loadsamoney, I'm all right Jack. After all there's no such thing as Society, just us the 'earners' and them ' the scummy underclass'.

Glad we got that sorted.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Now in regards to LiT, who earns by herself over the child benefit limit, I said that I think she could raise a child on said income because I have friends who have done so on less. Seems pretty reasonable I would have thought. Of course should LiT decide to have children she then wouldn't be able to work and depend on her salary.

This begs the question, would she then be eligible for child benefit?

Open question to all.

(I love it when people misjudge me).

I'm pretty sure she would, but she might have all sorts of fun depending on when she had said sprog, and whether the earnings in that tax year were over the limit - she might have to back claim some of it. Also depends what her maternity pay package is.

W1

Sc00bs wrote:

Nope w1 I didn't say I was leaving. You should perhaps try reading what others post?

I asked mods to pls ban - you or me. I'd prefer it if it weren't me...

I made no contradiction, I did say I don't doubt it happens - note I didn't make a ridiculous statement like 'people have more kids to have benefits' and expect this not to be quibbled.

I know of you only what I've read on here, namely you love a good row and your tone is condescending to the extreme.

I agree Paulie W - very loadsamoney, I'm all right Jack. After all there's no such thing as Society, just us the 'earners' and them ' the scummy underclass'.

Glad we got that sorted.

Well I've done nothing to warrant a ban, except hold (presumably) a different opinion to you. So that must mean you're off? And I say presumably, because you still refuse to actually say what you think - rather weak to then attack others, but hey ho, maybe you don't have an opinion that's worth hearing? Who knows.

All I do know about you is you ride a hybrid (like I do), don't like RLJers (same here) and rather like my Tutankamun Dambusters plate. Oh, and that children shold be sent up chimneys and down mines.

And something that you accept "happens" can't be also "guff" without you contradicting yourself.

So, are we going to get your earth-shattering and completely unarguable view soon? Or are you going to opt to ban yourself?

dhope

Rick Chasey wrote:

LiT what do you do?

HF stuff? Investment analyst or whatever?

Child trafficking

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Now in regards to LiT, who earns by herself over the child benefit limit, I said that I think she could raise a child on said income because I have friends who have done so on less. Seems pretty reasonable I would have thought. Of course should LiT decide to have children she then wouldn't be able to work and depend on her salary.

This begs the question, would she then be eligible for child benefit?

Open question to all.

(I love it when people misjudge me).

I'm pretty sure she would, but she might have all sorts of fun depending on when she had said sprog, and whether the earnings in that tax year were over the limit - she might have to back claim some of it. Also depends what her maternity pay package is.

How's that work. I thought if a person in the household earns more than £44,000 a year you aren't entitled to child benefit. This irrespecitve if it is the woman or man.

Here is the humdinger:
Read more: Families with two earners paying basic rate tax would still receive the benefit even if their combined salary is more than £44,000.

So you could have a household on £86,000 a year getting child benefits. But a household where one person earns £50,000 and the other £15K even £20K aren't eligible for child benefit.

That isn't fair.

lost_in_thought

dhope wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

LiT what do you do?

HF stuff? Investment analyst or whatever?

Child trafficking

Oh no, my job's much, much worse than that.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

Sc00bs wrote:

Nope w1 I didn't say I was leaving. You should perhaps try reading what others post?

I asked mods to pls ban - you or me. I'd prefer it if it weren't me...

I made no contradiction, I did say I don't doubt it happens - note I didn't make a ridiculous statement like 'people have more kids to have benefits' and expect this not to be quibbled.

I know of you only what I've read on here, namely you love a good row and your tone is condescending to the extreme.

I agree Paulie W - very loadsamoney, I'm all right Jack. After all there's no such thing as Society, just us the 'earners' and them ' the scummy underclass'.

Glad we got that sorted.

Well I've done nothing to warrant a ban, except hold (presumably) a different opinion to you. So that must mean you're off? And I say presumably, because you still refuse to actually say what you think - rather weak to then attack others, but hey ho, maybe you don't have an opinion that's worth hearing? Who knows.

All I do know about you is you ride a hybrid (like I do), don't like RLJers (same here) and rather like my Tutankamun Dambusters plate. Oh, and that children shold be sent up chimneys and down mines.

And something that you accept "happens" can't be also "guff" without you contradicting yourself.

So, are we going to get your earth-shattering and completely unarguable view soon? Or are you going to opt to ban yourself?

Oh snap sh*t got real! He called you out like a e-biatch!

Had that been me I'd be getting my typing gloves and wartime keyboard out right about now. Load up me up google images for a bunch of sarcastic and poigant images. This is an E-war.

CiB

DonDaddyD wrote:

That isn't fair.

Life's not fair full stop. The idea is that where a family earns enough to fall into higher rate tax bands, that family shouldn't also fall into the welfare system. That's the premise. Nothing to do with how it's not fair because Family A with Permutation B can claim it but Family C with permutation D don't. It's not about comparing Family A with Family C, it's about having a sensible cut-off point, and quite honestly higher rate tax is a good indicator of that cut-off.

DonDaddyD

CiB wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

That isn't fair.

Life's not fair full stop. The idea is that where a family earns enough to fall into higher rate tax bands, that family shouldn't also fall into the welfare system. That's the premise. Nothing to do with how it's not fair because Family A with Permutation B can claim it but Family C with permutation D don't. It's not about comparing Family A with Family C, it's about having a sensible cut-off point, and quite honestly higher rate tax is a good indicator of that cut-off.

Hasn't the Government, certainly a portion of the coalition tried to sell the public that its about fairness and parity?

A family is defined as a household and it isn't right that a household with one middle/high earner should be penalised whereas a household with a combined income that dwarfs that one persons salary benefits from state help.

Also what about single parent households?

ooermissus

CiB wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

That isn't fair.

Life's not fair full stop. The idea is that where a family earns enough to fall into higher rate tax bands, that family shouldn't also fall into the welfare system. That's the premise. Nothing to do with how it's not fair because Family A with Permutation B can claim it but Family C with permutation D don't. It's not about comparing Family A with Family C, it's about having a sensible cut-off point, and quite honestly higher rate tax is a good indicator of that cut-off.

That's a very loyal post rationalisation and I am sure Downing Street will be in touch to thank you for following the talking points.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Now in regards to LiT, who earns by herself over the child benefit limit, I said that I think she could raise a child on said income because I have friends who have done so on less. Seems pretty reasonable I would have thought. Of course should LiT decide to have children she then wouldn't be able to work and depend on her salary.

This begs the question, would she then be eligible for child benefit?

Open question to all.

(I love it when people misjudge me).

I'm pretty sure she would, but she might have all sorts of fun depending on when she had said sprog, and whether the earnings in that tax year were over the limit - she might have to back claim some of it. Also depends what her maternity pay package is.

How's that work. I thought if a person in the household earns more than £44,000 a year you aren't entitled to child benefit. This irrespecitve if it is the woman or man.

Here is the humdinger:
Read more: Families with two earners paying basic rate tax would still receive the benefit even if their combined salary is more than £44,000.

So you could have a household on £86,000 a year getting child benefits. But a household where one person earns £50,000 and the other £15K even £20K aren't eligible for child benefit.

That isn't fair.

To answer the first point: as soon as she stops working, her income will plummet unless she has a particularly cushy maternity pay package, so in that year and possibly subsequent years if she doesn't return to work, her income pa may well be below the threshold even if, say, the first 6 months of the year were at £44K+ pa.

The second point sticks in my craw somewhat - doesn't affect me, but if things go well at work it's not beyond the bounds of possibility in the not too too distant future.

tailwindhome

Family Allowance is £20.30/wk for the 1st child and £13.40/wk for each additional child.

This now frozen for the next 3 years.

I'm struggling to understand the mathematics behind having a child to claim the benefits.

d87heaven

Im struggling to work out why poeople get benefit for having children at all.

hmbadger

TailWindHome wrote:

Family Allowance is £20.30/wk for the 1st child and £13.40/wk for each additional child.

This now frozen for the next 3 years.

I'm struggling to understand the mathematics behind having a child to claim the benefits.

I think the point is that you get a good deal of other benefits as well. Nevertheless, the point you're making is valid. I very much doubt that the people who have kids in order to get the state asssitance that it brings them enjoy anything like the standard of living of most of the people on here who are slagging them off.

hmbadger

d87heaven wrote:

Im struggling to work out why poeople get benefit for having children at all.

Because otherwise the children might suffer from poverty.

And at the end of the day, we need people to have children, to be the productive future workers.

tailwindhome

hmbadger wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Family Allowance is £20.30/wk for the 1st child and £13.40/wk for each additional child.

This now frozen for the next 3 years.

I'm struggling to understand the mathematics behind having a child to claim the benefits.

I think the point is that you get a good deal of other benefits as well. Nevertheless, the point you're making is valid. I very much doubt that the people who have kids in order to get the state asssitance that it brings them enjoy anything like the standard of living of most of the people on here who are slagging them off.

Which benefits would I get by going from 4 to 5 kids.

We'd get another £13.40/wk in family allowance and about £20 in Child Tax Credit.

That's £33.40 a week. Now that sounds like a lot but my wife insists on feeding these kids *every* day. I'm not sure I can break even.

Could the outraged posters above let me know what else I can claim

Ta

tailwindhome

HMBadger wrote:

I very much doubt that the people who have kids in order to get the state asssitance that it brings them enjoy anything like the standard of living of most of the people on here who are slagging them off.

This is the real heart of the issue.

The outrage is about the number of people having kids to claim benefits.

It should be about the number of people lacking the aspiration to have a better life.

d87heaven

hmbadger wrote:

d87heaven wrote:

Im struggling to work out why poeople get benefit for having children at all.

Because otherwise the children might suffer from poverty.

And at the end of the day, we need people to have children, to be the productive future workers.

earning 35k a year = child poverty :roll: