are you a giver - or a taker?

rjsterry

Anyone going to admit to receiving a net benefit?

cyclingprop

I wish I could divert my 'large give' into bikes. And a flat deposit.

davis

It doesn't take into account things like mortgage/rent, which does kind of make most "disposable income" disappear.

Agent57

gbsahne wrote:

what, really.... why am I searching for the mortgage at the end of the month?

'Cause you live in a bigger house than me? Dunno, but I was having a conversation with a guy on the train this evening, about how we tend to live close to the limits of our means. His wife earns about £130000 and brings in about £6K per month after tax, for example, but his mortgage is about £2K compared to my £600, and they both have new cars that cost around £800 per month in total, as well as other things. I pay about £80 per month to Sky, which I wouldn't do if we were lower earners, as well as paying a decent amount into my pensions, etc. etc. etc.

First.Aspect

clarkey cat wrote:

I'm down over £27k but we still get child benefit... so basically NSB, you are contributing to my kid's trust fund.

Cheers

I just tried inventing a pretend child and it didn't change the calculation.

EDIT- it does. It discounts the second household income when I add a child. Tis pish.

rolf_f

Agent57 wrote:

'Cause you live in a bigger house than me? Dunno, but I was having a conversation with a guy on the train this evening, about how we tend to live close to the limits of our means..

No - this is incorrect. Most people spend their disposable income which is different to living close to the limits of their means. They tend to forget that when they retire, having blown their cash on a series of pointlessly expensive cars and frippery, that they have no pension and, big house aside (assuming it didn't get repossessed due to not allowing for changing interest rates), few real assets to cover for the loss of income. It is what is known in the business as 'being stupid'.......*

* I made that up but it's probably true. We wouldn't be in the mess we are in etc etc etc ........

First.Aspect

Rolf F wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

'Cause you live in a bigger house than me? Dunno, but I was having a conversation with a guy on the train this evening, about how we tend to live close to the limits of our means..

No - this is incorrect. Most people spend their disposable income which is different to living close to the limits of their means. They tend to forget that when they retire, having blown their cash on a series of pointlessly expensive cars and frippery, that they have no pension and, big house aside (assuming it didn't get repossessed due to not allowing for changing interest rates), few real assets to cover for the loss of income. It is what is known in the business as 'being stupid'.......

Its much much less stupid to live frugally until you are old and bent, then you can enjoy those fast cars and adventure holidays.. oh, wait.

Agent57

Rolf F wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

'Cause you live in a bigger house than me? Dunno, but I was having a conversation with a guy on the train this evening, about how we tend to live close to the limits of our means..

No - this is incorrect. Most people spend their disposable income which is different to living close to the limits of their means

I don't think it's different, but maybe your semantics are. I include spending up disposable income as well as taking on more debt "because I can afford it".

rolf_f

First Aspect wrote:

Its much much less stupid to live frugally until you are old and bent, then you can enjoy those fast cars and adventure holidays.. oh, wait.

That's being a bit dense (or more hopefully, tongue in cheek). How about an analogy? You can go out on a hundred mile ride and thrash yourself ragged for the first 60 miles and have nothing left for the end. You can pootle round and finish fit as a fiddle but not until Thursday next week. Or you can pace yourself and enjoy the whole ride.

Agent57 wrote:

I don't think it's different, but maybe your semantics are. I include spending up disposable income as well as taking on more debt "because I can afford it".

You might be right but I think a lot of people simply don't realise what they can truly afford. Fingers crossed, I should probably end up with a retirement income similar to what I earn now. This works as basically, I don't expect my living costs to reduce much in the future (I don't have a mortgage of any consequence anymore) so ideally I just want to maintain my standard of living.

Stone Glider

All I can say is THANK YOU.

Plus, when Mrs S G starts to collect her State Pension, in November, we 'take' even more!

daviesee

Stone Glider wrote:

All I can say is THANK YOU.

Plus, when Mrs S G starts to collect her State Pension, in November, we 'take' even more!

You are welcome. I will take collection of this in return:-

http://www.gios.it/bike/?CompactPro#menu

PM details to follow...........

veronese68

Quite interesting working out different scenarios as my wife was laid off in summer and has had a couple of temp jobs since.
Earning what she used to we contributed £1,900.
Earning £10k we would take £2,600.
If she earned nothing we would take £9,000.
So whilst earning £10k she would only be getting an extra £3,600 for the household. Makes you wonder if it's worth it considering the hassle of childcare arrangements. Fact of the matter is she would rather work than claim so it's not up for debate. Interesting numbers and you can understand how it pays not to work for some.

rjsterry

Veronese68 wrote:

Quite interesting working out different scenarios as my wife was laid off in summer and has had a couple of temp jobs since.
Earning what she used to we contributed £1,900.
Earning £10k we would take £2,600.
If she earned nothing we would take £9,000.
So whilst earning £10k she would only be getting an extra £3,600 for the household. Makes you wonder if it's worth it considering the hassle of childcare arrangements. Fact of the matter is she would rather work than claim so it's not up for debate. Interesting numbers and you can understand how it pays not to work for some.

Spotted this yesterday, which seems relevant. The push to get mothers back to work is all well and good, but given that even those in the 7th decile of those stats can only just about break even when offsetting childcare costs against earnings, it's not surprising that so many families decide that it makes more sense for one partner to stay at home and raise the children.

daviesee

rjsterry wrote:

The push to get mothers back to work is all well and good, but given that even those in the 7th decile of those stats can only just about break even when offsetting childcare costs against earnings, it's not surprising that so many families decide that it makes more sense for one partner to stay at home and raise the children.

I have never understood the desire to have children, only to be followed up by the desire to have someone else raise them. :?:

veronese68

daviesee wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The push to get mothers back to work is all well and good, but given that even those in the 7th decile of those stats can only just about break even when offsetting childcare costs against earnings, it's not surprising that so many families decide that it makes more sense for one partner to stay at home and raise the children.

I have never understood the desire to have children, only to be followed up by the desire to have someone else raise them. :?:

I take ypur point. My wife used to work part time, term time only for a local council. She effectively worked half a year. So, she could take them to school when they were at primary school and 3 days a week she was home early enough to pick them up. Admittedly a bit more money would have been nice but there are other priorities.
Unfortunately she was laid off and we can't quite manage without some income from her. She would rather work part time but it is very hard to get a part time job. She has been turned down for being over-qualified. She would rather work than claim benefits. Now that the kids are older it's not such an issue. It would be preferable if it happened after our daughter had started secondary school, but you can't have everything.

clarkey cat

I have never understood the desire to have children, only to be followed up by the desire to have someone else raise them.

A friend of mine was a nanny in New York to a 6 month old baby - the mother didnt work. She just socialised alot!

I think most people who send their kids to nursery need the two incomes to make ends meet.

daviesee

clarkey cat wrote:

I have never understood the desire to have children, only to be followed up by the desire to have someone else raise them.

A friend of mine was a nanny in New York to a 6 month old baby - the mother didnt work. She just socialised alot!

I think most people who send their kids to nursery need the two incomes to make ends meet.

The point was that after all expenses are taken into account, there is little financial advantage in a lot of cases.
Certainly the ones that I know of. For most of them, they appear to treat work as a social gathering.

clarkey cat

Yes that is true. Our net gain per month with my wife working 2 days a week is about £200 - however, she likes her job, likes keeping her foot in and we like the little man spending time socialising with other kids. Besides, he'll be off to boarding school when he's 5 so he may has well get used to abandonment issues early on.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

£-12,433

Its nice to know I'm buying nappies for DDD though

Actually, shouldn't you be thanking me for supporting your ass!?

:twisted:

Me and Ms DDD:

On average, people with household incomes similar to yours have an annual balance of... £-27,222

Your household is in the tenth decile, where one has the least disposable income and ten has the most. Households from the 7th decile and above, on average, pay more in tax than they receive in benefits and services.

rjsterry

Something's up with it: I put the same info in twice and got different results :? EDIT: Ah, no, I'm an idiot. Definitely feeling a part of the squeezed middle. 7th decile for me - all you 10th decilers can stop bleating about how tough it is making ends meet when one of you is on maternity leave :P

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

£-12,433

Its nice to know I'm buying nappies for DDD though

Actually, shouldn't you be thanking me for supporting your ass!?

:twisted:

Me and Ms DDD:

On average, people with household incomes similar to yours have an annual balance of... £-27,222

Your household is in the tenth decile, where one has the least disposable income and ten has the most. Households from the 7th decile and above, on average, pay more in tax than they receive in benefits and services.

Clearly it would be much simpler to reduce your tax burden and abolish CB?
Actually, that puts you in the top 10%. With that high an income CB is simply more disposable income.

veronese68

clarkey cat wrote:

Yes that is true. Our net gain per month with my wife working 2 days a week is about £200 - however, she likes her job, likes keeping her foot in and we like the little man spending time socialising with other kids. Besides, he'll be off to boarding school when he's 5 so he may has well get used to abandonment issues early on.

This is a good point. I think it's good to keep their foot in and it can help with self esteem. Some time away from the kids can be good for the mother and for the children. The mother gets a break from the kids and as a result tends to enjoy the time with them more. Some people can feel a bit trapped just looking after a kid 24/7 and lose a bit of their sense of identity.
I don't think dumping a 3 month old kid on a nanny at 7am and picking them up at 8pm 5 days a week and hiring baby sitters so you can go out every Friday and Saturday night is a good idea. I know a couple that did that, it seemed like the poor baby was gettnig in the way of their lives.
As with many things in life, it's about finding the right balance that works for you.
Having said all of the above we've had far from the right balance this morning. My wife is on the 2nd day of a 3 month full time contract. She dropped my daughter off with a neighbour to walk her to school and had floods of tears, which resulted in my wife phoning me from the station in tears. We need to find the right way again.

daviesee

Veronese68 wrote:

I don't think dumping a 3 month old kid on a nanny at 7am and picking them up at 8pm 5 days a week and hiring baby sitters so you can go out every Friday and Saturday night is a good idea. I know a couple that did that, it seemed like the poor baby was gettnig in the way of their lives.

That sounds familiar. That's what i don't get. Part time I can understand, especially around nursery/school times.

PS:- I am not talking about wealthy or much above minimum wage people here.

rjsterry

daviesee wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

I don't think dumping a 3 month old kid on a nanny at 7am and picking them up at 8pm 5 days a week and hiring baby sitters so you can go out every Friday and Saturday night is a good idea. I know a couple that did that, it seemed like the poor baby was gettnig in the way of their lives.

That sounds familiar. That's what i don't get. Part time I can understand, especially around nursery/school times.

And 13 years later, they'll wonder why their kid never speaks to them and is hanging out with the wrong people :roll:

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

£-12,433

Its nice to know I'm buying nappies for DDD though

Actually, shouldn't you be thanking me for supporting your ass!?

:twisted:

Me and Ms DDD:

On average, people with household incomes similar to yours have an annual balance of... £-27,222

Your household is in the tenth decile, where one has the least disposable income and ten has the most. Households from the 7th decile and above, on average, pay more in tax than they receive in benefits and services.

I thought Mrs DDD wasn't earning at the moment?

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

£-12,433

Its nice to know I'm buying nappies for DDD though

Actually, shouldn't you be thanking me for supporting your ass!?

:twisted:

Me and Ms DDD:

On average, people with household incomes similar to yours have an annual balance of... £-27,222

Your household is in the tenth decile, where one has the least disposable income and ten has the most. Households from the 7th decile and above, on average, pay more in tax than they receive in benefits and services.

I thought Mrs DDD wasn't earning at the moment?

She get maternity pay (not much) which is why child benefit helps. Whether it is needed is debatable we however use it as intended. Nappies and Formula.

NSB wrote:

Clearly it would be much simpler to reduce your tax burden and abolish CB?
Actually, that puts you in the top 10%. With that high an income CB is simply more disposable income.

Neither I or Ms DDD are in the 40% bracket.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

£-12,433

Its nice to know I'm buying nappies for DDD though

Actually, shouldn't you be thanking me for supporting your ass!?

:twisted:

Me and Ms DDD:

On average, people with household incomes similar to yours have an annual balance of... £-27,222

Your household is in the tenth decile, where one has the least disposable income and ten has the most. Households from the 7th decile and above, on average, pay more in tax than they receive in benefits and services.

I thought Mrs DDD wasn't earning at the moment?

She get maternity pay (not much) which is why child benefit helps. Whether it is needed is debatable we however use it as intended. Nappies and Formula.

NSB wrote:

Clearly it would be much simpler to reduce your tax burden and abolish CB?
Actually, that puts you in the top 10%. With that high an income CB is simply more disposable income.

Neither I or Ms DDD are in the 40% bracket.

So I'm guessing either you put Ms DDD's pre-sprog earnings in, or her maternity pay is not as bad as all that. Otherwise, you shouldn't be in the 10th decile unless I'm missing something :?

DonDaddyD

To get £27,222 I put Ms DDD's pre sprog earnings in.

With mine it would just be:

On average, people with household incomes similar to yours have an annual balance of... £-12,433

Your household is in the ninth decile, where one has the least disposable income and ten has the most. Households from the 7th decile and above, on average, pay more in tax than they receive in benefits and services.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

Neither I or Ms DDD are in the 40% bracket.

But combined, you are in the top 10%.

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Neither I or Ms DDD are in the 40% bracket.

But combined, you are in the top 10%.

What do you have to earn to be in the top 10%?