Benefit capping

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

...
Personally the only benefit I get is child benefit, I earn over £30K. I need that. It covers nappies and formula.

DDD, I'm not having a go at you here, but would ask the question as to why you and your solicitor partner should have the luxury of child benefit.

Why should others subsidise your lifestyle?


This is meant as a general question re CB - not a dig at you

TheStone

Asprilla wrote:

The CB we get for the Mighty Pickle goes straight into her child trust fund.

I think I'm part of the problem.

Sounds sensible to me.
The future generations will have a much tougher time. We're still massively increasing their debt burden, so we can continue to enjoy services and give out benefits that we can't afford. (plus the banks)

Allez Mark

Could anyone tell me how I go about getting £26,000 in benefits. I don't like my job anymore.

MaxwellBygraves

While we're on the topic of scroungers, has anyone mentioned millionaire Ian Duncan Smith claiming nearly 20K in expenses?

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

...
Personally the only benefit I get is child benefit, I earn over £30K. I need that. It covers nappies and formula.

DDD, I'm not having a go at you here, but would ask the question as to why you and your solicitor partner should have the luxury of child benefit.

Why should others subsidise your lifestyle?


This is meant as a general question re CB - not a dig at you

I think its a good point. Surely people earning over £30k can afford to support a child without needing to use benefits?

Wallace1492

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

While we're on the topic of scroungers, has anyone mentioned millionaire Ian Duncan Smith claiming nearly 20K in expenses?

So, rich people are not allowed to claim expenses? Its all about context, and your above statement gives absolutely no context. It makes out that IDS is a scrounger by claiming expenses. Am I a scrounger by claiming legitamate expenses incurred, although if I did not get them, I would not require to cease my daily delivery of Moet?

suzyb

TheStone wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

I don't believe it is just for people out of work. Many people who work also get various benefits. This is just limiting the total that people can get in general...

But I find that quite strange too.

If someone's in full time work, they should be able to support a family. We're using the tax system to subsidise corporates so they can pay less wages and sell stuff cheaper. It doesn't make any sense.

One person or two? Most of the people I know that work full time can't afford to support a family themselves, their spouse needs to work as well. And they ain't living in well off areas.

jds_1981

notsoblue wrote:

I think its a good point. Surely people earning over £30k can afford to support a child without needing to use benefits?

Sounds reasonable, if not squeeze elsewhere. D-2 ? :P

notsoblue

jds_1981 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

What the tories are saying in essence is actually quite sound. i.e. That your income from benefits should not be higher than that of the national average. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with that. And anyone on the left that *is* disagreeing with that is just playing some party political game imo.

Shocked that NSB & I both seem to be on the same side of an argument..

I think we usually are when it comes down to the nitty gritty, its just that you probably like to resort to straw men too much

If it helps to calm you down a little, we probably disagree about how much effort should be put in to reducing the poverty impact of these changes.

jds_1981 wrote:

I am even more shocked to find out that I was essentially homeless for much of my chilhood

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/real ... ap-poverty

Duncan Smith also dismissed this saying that the definition of homelessness used in government and by the authorities was families living in inadequate accommodation with children forced to share bedrooms rather than actually being on the street.

Thats pretty crazy. How can parliament be expected to have a rational discussion about this issue when the vernacular is so bizarre.

DonDaddyD

OK lets do this:

£32,000 a year (Not my actual salary but some of my living costs)

£1,882.70 a month (incl. student loan payments)

Monthly expenses:

£1000 rent (my rent is actually less)
£330 bills (electricity, gas, water, telephone, Internet, TV licence, Council Tax and no SKY TV).
£150 on food
£150 travel
£75 child costs (nappies and formula - actual figure)
£20 other child costs (clothes, toys etc)

This before I get into:
Car costs (£75 insurance, parking permit, MOT, petrol)
Bike costs
Contact lenes (£24)
Personal expenses (£100 - £200)

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder. I don't need my child benefit, I do enjoy it and it does help which is the purpose of it.

On a personal note I actually want something from the pot that I contribute to.

If they want to take child benefit away then do so, but do so fairly. It isn't right that two people on a combined £60,000 (earning £30,000 each) can claim and a person on £44,000 cannot.

W1

Allez Mark wrote:

Could anyone tell me how I go about getting £26,000 in benefits. I don't like my job anymore.

Easy - have no assets and no job.

JSA - £3,510 per year

Have four kids:
Child benefit - £3,146

Housing benefit (capped at £400/week) = £20,800

Total - £27,456.

W1

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

While we're on the topic of scroungers, has anyone mentioned millionaire Ian Duncan Smith claiming nearly 20K in expenses?

Jeez, if you think the rich shouldn't claim their expenses (you know, the costs you incurr in doing your job) then you are beyond rational argument.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

What the tories are saying in essence is actually quite sound. i.e. That your income from benefits should not be higher than that of the national average. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with that. And anyone on the left that *is* disagreeing with that is just playing some party political game imo.

Shocked that NSB & I both seem to be on the same side of an argument..

I think we usually are when it comes down to the nitty gritty, its just that you probably like to resort to straw men too much

If it helps to calm you down a little, we probably disagree about how much effort should be put in to reducing the poverty impact of these changes.

jds_1981 wrote:

I am even more shocked to find out that I was essentially homeless for much of my chilhood

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/real ... ap-poverty

Duncan Smith also dismissed this saying that the definition of homelessness used in government and by the authorities was families living in inadequate accommodation with children forced to share bedrooms rather than actually being on the street.

Thats pretty crazy. How can parliament be expected to have a rational discussion about this issue when the vernacular is so bizarre.

I'm adding the word "poverty" to my list of words that politicians and those arguing with them should be banned from using, on the basis that they do so well outside the usual understanding most people have of the word.

DonDaddyD

I don't claim any expenses for my job.

Personal choice. I don't begrudge others theirs.

TheStone

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder. I don't need my child benefit, I do enjoy it and it does help which is the purpose of it.

On a personal note I actually want something from the pot that I contribute to.

If they want to take child benefit away then do so, but do so fairly. It isn't right that two people on a combined £60,000 (earning £30,000 each) can claim and a person on £44,000 cannot.

I think going down to one salary is the hard part. Baby stuff isn't that expensive, you probably save that by going out less. Does the employee or govt pay the other half something? If not, they should.

Agree on the way they've set-up the CB changes. Makes no sense and makes the whole policy look stupid.

asprilla

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder.

Yes it does. But then you choose to live where you do.

When we planned TMP we decided to move out of London in order to reduce our outgoings. We also put enough in savings to cover most of Mrs A's costs whilst she was on maternity leave prior to TMP arriving.

Wallace1492

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't claim any expenses for my job.

Personal choice. I don't begrudge others theirs.

Claim them DDD. You should not be out of pocket for carrying out your job.

I now work 3 days a week in Edinburgh and claim my resultant travel costs. Why should I be out of pocket when my employer has forced me to work in another office, (and this will also result in my redundancy in a little over 3 weeks time) I need every penny I can get!

DonDaddyD

TheStone wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder. I don't need my child benefit, I do enjoy it and it does help which is the purpose of it.

On a personal note I actually want something from the pot that I contribute to.

If they want to take child benefit away then do so, but do so fairly. It isn't right that two people on a combined £60,000 (earning £30,000 each) can claim and a person on £44,000 cannot.

I think going down to one salary is the hard part. Baby stuff isn't that expensive, you probably save that by going out less. Does the employee or govt pay the other half something? If not, they should.

Agree on the way they've set-up the CB changes. Makes no sense and makes the whole policy look stupid.

Not all employers provide maternity pay and the amount that is paid varies from nothing to full pay for 12 months. I think Child Benefit was there to help and help ease the burden. Honestly child benefit is surpassed by other child maintenance/benefits for those that need it. CB is a nice gesture from the Government to the people.

clarkey cat

we had to move too when we had a baby as couldnt afford to buy in Zone 2.

we now live in Surrey, surrounded by Waitrose-loving MAMILs.

Of course, I feel utterly at home.

DonDaddyD

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder.

Yes it does. But then you choose to live where you do.

When we planned TMP we decided to move out of London in order to reduce our outgoings. We also put enough in savings to cover most of Mrs A's costs whilst she was on maternity leave prior to TMP arriving.

OK this isn't about me. But I feel compelled.

1: Leaving London isn't always feasible or even the best option for the family.

2: That family may already be paying the best available price for where they leave in a 5-10 mile radius of where they live.

suzyb

DonDaddyD wrote:

TheStone wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder. I don't need my child benefit, I do enjoy it and it does help which is the purpose of it.

On a personal note I actually want something from the pot that I contribute to.

If they want to take child benefit away then do so, but do so fairly. It isn't right that two people on a combined £60,000 (earning £30,000 each) can claim and a person on £44,000 cannot.

I think going down to one salary is the hard part. Baby stuff isn't that expensive, you probably save that by going out less. Does the employee or govt pay the other half something? If not, they should.

Agree on the way they've set-up the CB changes. Makes no sense and makes the whole policy look stupid.

Not all employers provide maternity pay and the amount that is paid varies from nothing to full pay for 12 months. I think Child Benefit was there to help and help ease the burden. Honestly child benefit is surpassed by other child maintenance/benefits for those that need it. CB is a nice gesture from the Government to the people.

I thought employers had to provide maternity pay by law. Similar to sick pay, they had to pay it but it was a percentage of full salary.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

I'm adding the word "poverty" to my list of words that politicians and those arguing with them should be banned from using, on the basis that they do so well outside the usual understanding most people have of the word.

This isn't as much a problem as it is for people to be arguing across eachother about a subject for which they both have different definitions.

Wallace1492

:evil:

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder.

Yes it does. But then you choose to live where you do.

When we planned TMP we decided to move out of London in order to reduce our outgoings. We also put enough in savings to cover most of Mrs A's costs whilst she was on maternity leave prior to TMP arriving.

OK this isn't about me. But I feel compelled.

1: Leaving London isn't always feasible or even the best option for the family.

2: That family may already be paying the best available price for where they leave in a 5-10 mile radius of where they live.

Playing devil's advocate... Why should people who don't claim child benefit be supporting those who choose to have children when their employment and living situation doesn't allow them to do so comfortably without help from the state?

rjsterry

The trouble with housing benefit in particular is that is a 'sticking plaster' to a a more fundamental problem - the lack of social housing. There is a housing shortage full stop in London, which continues to keep prices artificially high, and nowhere near enough of the stuff that is built is given over to 'affordable' units. While being able to buy your council flat or house at an absolute knock down price is great for the social mobility of the tenant in question, it takes yet another home out of the social housing pool.

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder.

Yes it does. But then you choose to live where you do.

When we planned TMP we decided to move out of London in order to reduce our outgoings. We also put enough in savings to cover most of Mrs A's costs whilst she was on maternity leave prior to TMP arriving.

OK this isn't about me. But I feel compelled.

1: Leaving London isn't always feasible or even the best option for the family.

2: That family may already be paying the best available price for where they leave in a 5-10 mile radius of where they live.

Playing devil's advocate... Why should people who don't claim child benefit be supporting those who choose to have children when their employment and living situation doesn't allow them to do so comfortably without help from the state?

You want someone to look after you when you get old and doddery?

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder.

Yes it does. But then you choose to live where you do.

When we planned TMP we decided to move out of London in order to reduce our outgoings. We also put enough in savings to cover most of Mrs A's costs whilst she was on maternity leave prior to TMP arriving.

OK this isn't about me. But I feel compelled.

1: Leaving London isn't always feasible or even the best option for the family.

2: That family may already be paying the best available price for where they leave in a 5-10 mile radius of where they live.

Playing devil's advocate... Why should people who don't claim child benefit be supporting those who choose to have children when their employment and living situation doesn't allow them to do so comfortably without help from the state?

Because we live in a Country with a set of principles where state welfare is a needed function of maintaining the society within the Country. We have or will all benefit from public funds/benefits in some way or another.

If we go the route of I don't claim X so I won't/shouldn't be contributing to pot Y. Then we should dissolve our other state funded institutions.

Seriously though I see that as a brickwall argument that gets everyone nowhere.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble with housing benefit in particular is that is a 'sticking plaster' to a a more fundamental problem - the lack of social housing. There is a housing shortage full stop in London, which continues to keep prices artificially high, and nowhere near enough of the stuff that is built is given over to 'affordable' units. While being able to buy your council flat or house at an absolute knock down price is great for the social mobility of the tenant in question, it takes yet another home out of the social housing pool.

This always this.

I'm probably going to live outside of London.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Because we live in a Country with a set of principles where state welfare is a needed function of maintaining the society within the Country. We have or will all benefit from public funds/benefits in some way or another.

If we go the route of I don't claim X so I won't/shouldn't be contributing to pot Y. Then we should dissolve our other state funded institutions.

Seriously though I see that as a brickwall argument that gets everyone nowhere.

Yeah, I agree with you, but you yourself said that you felt you were entitled to some child benefits because you contribute.

Anyway, devil's advocate...I don't feel that way myself. Interesting point about state welfare being required to maintain our society. Why do you think that is? (not saying it isn't).

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Playing devil's advocate... Why should people who don't claim child benefit be supporting those who choose to have children when their employment and living situation doesn't allow them to do so comfortably without help from the state?

You want someone to look after you when you get old and doddery?

Yeah, and I want to be looked after in a 5* Retirement home staffed entirely by nubile Brazillian nurses. But I know I can't expect that from state care provision. Similarly, its a little silly to expect child support benefits from the government if it just means you have more disposable income.