I have just read up on it, I am guessing you have done some kind of calculator online that tells you it will be that amount?
don't forget that you will be paying less tax to start with when the tax threshold increases so that will benefit you.
You must have a good income then for it to drop that much, sorry been nosey am genuinely curious as I don't get how it could drop that much
edit just done a budget calculator thing with an imaginary husband and imaginary kids.
was interesting to learn that a couple with just above min wage earnings and 1 brat will actually be better off, put in the same with 3 kids and worse off
which says it all really
Just worked mine out, a single father with two kids on just above a minimum wage job and I will be £1500.00 a year worse off.
I have just read up on it, I am guessing you have done some kind of calculator online that tells you it will be that amount?
don't forget that you will be paying less tax to start with when the tax threshold increases so that will benefit you.
You must have a good income then for it to drop that much, sorry been nosey am genuinely curious as I don't get how it could drop that much
edit just done a budget calculator thing with an imaginary husband and imaginary kids.
was interesting to learn that a couple with just above min wage earnings and 1 brat will actually be better off, put in the same with 3 kids and worse off
which says it all really
My tax payments are minimal. It won't make up for the loss of about £130 a month
By the way. Put in single mum on 18k with one child and come back with your 'says it all' attitude. Make sure it's a calculator including this budget and not before.
And the beauty is, if I never worked I would be no worse off.
no but you would be harassed by the job centre constantly...tho depending on the hours you work that may happen now anyway.
I cant believe they are going to start harassing people to get work when their child turns 3. Its not like there are enough jobs out there anyway so I don't see the benefit of harassing the sick or single parents.
I honestly don't know how we are going to cope with the loss of money things are tight now, I suppose try and get a council house or housing association but there aren't any in my area which would mean moving and changing the kids schools
wheres that going to leave the poor? talk of no tax credits or family allowance other than first two kids .will hit the 3rd child onwards of low income workers as well as the unemployed.lot of money to lose, about £110 pounds a week for a family with 4 kids and thats not including family allowance/child benefit of £13.70 per child per week(and yes i will be affected) hes screwing the disabled,now the kids but not touching pensions!
guess will have to wait till the budget before we find out how severe its going to be
I sincerely hope they never touch the pensions, pensions may well be lobbed in or classified as a benefit, however they are contributions that I have paid in my entire working life from my salary!!
I sincerely hope they never touch the pensions, pensions may well be lobbed in or classified as a benefit, however they are contributions that I have paid in my entire working life from my salary!!
Oh they've hit the low incomes first. Your time will come.
Oh they've hit the low incomes first. Your time will come.
I'm not sure of that. Pensioners tend to vote, so antagonising them by cutting the pension could mean a political party might shoot themselves in the foot.
My tax payments are minimal. It won't make up for the loss of about £130 a month
By the way. Put in single mum on 18k with one child and come back with your 'says it all' attitude. Make sure it's a calculator including this budget and not before.
my says it all attitude still applies. I have no idea why the government was paying these amounts to people just because they chose to have children.
the sense of entitlement and outrage from people because the government has chosen not to continue funding endless kids astounds me.
people need to live within their means and stop relying on the government gravy train
no but you would be harassed by the job centre constantly...tho depending on the hours you work that may happen now anyway.
I cant believe they are going to start harassing people to get work when their child turns 3. Its not like there are enough jobs out there anyway so I don't see the benefit of harassing the sick or single parents.
I honestly don't know how we are going to cope with the loss of money things are tight now, I suppose try and get a council house or housing association but there aren't any in my area which would mean moving and changing the kids schools
It's this government's obsession with getting people into work at any cost. I did some maths last night and the results were interesting.
My daughter is aged 2 and I'm currently a stay at home mum while my partner works. We currently receive tax credits. When my daughter is 3 I will be offered 30 hours a week of free nursery hours for her which will enable me to work while not losing huge amounts of pay to childcare. This will then eliminate the tax credits I get (hooray I hear people say! why should I pay for your decision to have a child etc etc)
However the cost of the free nursery hours will be at least DOUBLE the amount of tax credits I currently get so where is the benefit to the taxpayer? I will probably be in a minimum wage job so won't be paying lots of tax.
What I'm saying is if the extra tax paid by a parent working doesn't bring in more than the government are paying out for child care then what's the point? You might as well just let the parent(s) do the parenting.
The point is, if the government pays to a third party for child care and the parent goes out to work then two people are employed. If the money is simply paid to the parent then no one is employed.
It's this government's obsession with getting people into work at any cost. I did some maths last night and the results were interesting.
My daughter is aged 2 and I'm currently a stay at home mum while my partner works. We currently receive tax credits. When my daughter is 3 I will be offered 30 hours a week of free nursery hours for her which will enable me to work while not losing huge amounts of pay to childcare. This will then eliminate the tax credits I get (hooray I hear people say! why should I pay for your decision to have a child etc etc)
However the cost of the free nursery hours will be at least DOUBLE the amount of tax credits I currently get so where is the benefit to the taxpayer? I will probably be in a minimum wage job so won't be paying lots of tax.
The problem being is there isn't the jobs, also some will put their kids in for 30hours and not go to work. Round here tho it will create a real problem as there are not the spaces, there are also no places to send kids on the holidays. Then with the pension age having gone up grandparents aren't home to help look after the kids.
The problem being is there isn't the jobs, also some will put their kids in for 30hours and not go to work. Round here tho it will create a real problem as there are not the spaces, there are also no places to send kids on the holidays. Then with the pension age having gone up grandparents aren't home to help look after the kids.
Good points. The whole plan seemingly hasn't properly been thought through. Nurseries won't get enough money to fully cover the hours anyway.
Good points. The whole plan seemingly hasn't properly been thought through. Nurseries won't get enough money to fully cover the hours anyway.
There's not enough nursery or school places atm here as it is, no jobs lack of decent public transport to get to a job yet they are building another 200 houses when the towns facilities can't cope with what it has. The next town over runs a holiday club but it's tight for spaces as it is and doesn't take kids under 7 so what you're supposed to do with your kids is beyond me not that the job centre or government care. If they were more sensible they would have stopped the nursery funding and put it back to how it was about finding work when your youngest is 7 or even 10 as that would also discourage people from having more kids just to stay at home as they already would be
There's not enough nursery or school places atm here as it is, no jobs lack of decent public transport to get to a job yet they are building another 200 houses when the towns facilities can't cope with what it has. The next town over runs a holiday club but it's tight for spaces as it is and doesn't take kids under 7 so what you're supposed to do with your kids is beyond me not that the job centre or government care. If they were more sensible they would have stopped the nursery funding and put it back to how it was about finding work when your youngest is 7 or even 10 as that would also discourage people from having more kids just to stay at home as they already would be
so effectively you want 7-10years maternity leave paid by the government?
nothing to stop someone else starting up a nursery or holiday club if their is a demand for it is there. which will in itself create jobs too
so effectively you want 7-10years maternity leave paid by the government?
nothing to stop someone else starting up a nursery or holiday club if their is a demand for it is there. which will in itself create jobs too
No i am saying effectively it is probably cheaper to do this for the single parents (most parents choose to go back to work whether single or not, so a small percentage left unless you believe the daily mail) than the way it is currently with the subsidised childcare hours (which are given whether you work or not). I also accept there will always be the odd few that don't want to go to work so trying to force them when their child turns 3 seems stupid as they will just have another one...so by saying they don't have to for a longer time they may not have so many.
I also accept there will always be some unemployed people...so in effect surely its better for it to be people with kids to look after over school leavers etc
Its called the overall big picture which the government choose to ignore unless it benefits the upper classes and big business
The conservative used to spout they were making work pay and by being in work you would be better off, well they just shat on that one yesterday.
No i am saying effectively it is probably cheaper to do this for the single parents (most parents choose to go back to work whether single or not, so a small percentage left unless you believe the daily mail) than the way it is currently with the subsidised childcare hours (which are given whether you work or not). I also accept there will always be the odd few that don't want to go to work so trying to force them when their child turns 3 seems stupid as they will just have another one...so by saying they don't have to for a longer time they may not have so many.
I also accept there will always be some unemployed people...so in effect surely its better for it to be people with kids to look after over school leavers etc
Its called the overall big picture which the government choose to ignore unless it benefits the upper classes and big business
The conservative used to spout they were making work pay and by being in work you would be better off, well they just shat on that one yesterday.
I always thought it took two to make a baby (in the traditional way) so unless one of the parent has died or is disabled to the extent they cannot work both parents should be contributing to the childs upbringing. but are u basically saying a single parent should be allowed 7-10yrs off to look after the child and couples should work?
your plan is very flawed, the government are creating jobs and increasing wages you must have missed that bit of the budget. they are increasing apprenticeships for school leavers so they will be trained and easier for them to keep/get jobs
oh and the government is limiting to pay for two children so said single parent wont be able to just have another child (tho how they do this as a single person I wonder! ) over and over so they didnt have to work.
A normal working parent has 9-12 months maternity leave and then goes back to work and earns money to pay for their family. You're suggesting people don't go back to work for 7-10 years it is about the most ridiculous idea I have heard of.
I am sorry but if you want to be a stay at home mum you should make sure your husband earns enough to do that or make sacrifices so you do not have to work not just expect the government to pay for it.
I always thought it took two to make a baby (in the traditional way) so unless one of the parent has died or is disabled to the extent they cannot work both parents should be contributing to the childs upbringing. but are u basically saying a single parent should be allowed 7-10yrs off to look after the child and couples should work?
your plan is very flawed, the government are creating jobs and increasing wages you must have missed that bit of the budget. they are increasing apprenticeships for school leavers so they will be trained and easier for them to keep/get jobs
oh and the government is limiting to pay for two children so said single parent wont be able to just have another child (tho how they do this as a single person I wonder! ) over and over so they didnt have to work.
A normal working parent has 9-12 months maternity leave and then goes back to work and earns money to pay for their family. You're suggesting people don't go back to work for 7-10 years it is about the most ridiculous idea I have heard of.
I am sorry but if you want to be a stay at home mum you should make sure your husband earns enough to do that or make sacrifices so you do not have to work not just expect the government to pay for it.
You've missed the whole point of my post which is about the cost effectiveness of subsidising nursery places for children over a parent staying at home. The fact of the matter is it costs the government more to do this than have the mother stay at home. So in effect you actually support people sending their kids to nursery for 30 hours a week at the governments expense and them still staying at home just with no kids to look after.
As for the rest of your post some of it is just funny especially the bit in bold. More zero hour contracts, work fare and government schemes to manipulate figures.
The government is limiting tax credits to two children not other benefits
You've missed the whole point of my post which is about the cost effectiveness of subsidising nursery places for children over a parent staying at home. The fact of the matter is it costs the government more to do this than have the mother stay at home. So in effect you actually support people sending their kids to nursery for 30 hours a week at the governments expense and them still staying at home just with no kids to look after.
As for the rest of your post some of it is just funny especially the bit in bold. More zero hour contracts, work fare and government schemes to manipulate figures.
The government is limiting tax credits to two children not other benefits
maybe you should consider moving to another country that will pay you to be a stay at home mum for 7-10 years if you are so unhappy
maybe you should consider moving to another country that will pay you to be a stay at home mum for 7-10 years if you are so unhappy
I actually work (though I have am going to lose £1,500 thanks to Dave so not really worth it) there's no need to try and make it personal just because you keep missing the point...statistically for the amount of single parents or couples that stay at home (which is a small number, most people work, even single parents even if it is part time) it would be cheaper to have them stay at home than it is to subsidise nursery placements especially when you take into consideration there will always be X amount of unemployed people.
There will always be unemployment, whether its habitual or not its something I accepted some time ago, as nothing I could do about it, not how I would want to live but also that I prefer to have such a safety net in place. I would rather the person without a job was raising a child and being a good parent than just bumming about down the pub. My first job was actually at the jobcentre at 16 and I used to think get a job, but on maturing and getting some life experience and perspective I've learned not to be so judgmental
I actually work (though I have am going to lose £1,500 thanks to Dave so not really worth it) there's no need to try and make it personal just because you keep missing the point...statistically for the amount of single parents or couples that stay at home (which is a small number, most people work, even single parents even if it is part time) it would be cheaper to have them stay at home than it is to subsidise nursery placements especially when you take into consideration there will always be X amount of unemployed people.
There will always be unemployment, whether its habitual or not its something I accepted some time ago, as nothing I could do about it, not how I would want to live but also that I prefer to have such a safety net in place. I would rather the person without a job was raising a child and being a good parent than just bumming about down the pub. My first job was actually at the jobcentre at 16 and I used to think get a job, but on maturing and getting some life experience and perspective I've learned not to be so judgmental
I'm not sure that's entirely true as it misses out of the equation that childminders will be employed who would otherwise be on the dole. Childminders can't look after that many children at a time so there must be quite a lot of them. (6 under 8years not more than 3 of them under 5years and including the childminders own.)
You've missed the whole point of my post which is about the cost effectiveness of subsidising nursery places for children over a parent staying at home. The fact of the matter is it costs the government more to do this than have the mother stay at home. So in effect you actually support people sending their kids to nursery for 30 hours a week at the governments expense and them still staying at home just with no kids to look after.
As for the rest of your post some of it is just funny especially the bit in bold. More zero hour contracts, work fare and government schemes to manipulate figures.
The government is limiting tax credits to two children not other benefits
Exactly the point I was making earlier. The government are basically paying people to not look after their kids. It's a rather strange position to take.
Hopefully the governments position will obliterate the reckless and selfish opinion held by many that it is perfectly fine to have as many kids as you want and not expect to have to fund them yourself.
Comments
You're on benefits so who are you supporting?
I agree. I would do the same.
Just worked mine out, a single father with two kids on just above a minimum wage job and I will be £1500.00 a year worse off.
same as myself and my mate we both worked out we would be 1,500 a year worse off.
My tax payments are minimal. It won't make up for the loss of about £130 a month
By the way. Put in single mum on 18k with one child and come back with your 'says it all' attitude. Make sure it's a calculator including this budget and not before.
And the beauty is, if I never worked I would be no worse off.
no but you would be harassed by the job centre constantly...tho depending on the hours you work that may happen now anyway.
I cant believe they are going to start harassing people to get work when their child turns 3. Its not like there are enough jobs out there anyway so I don't see the benefit of harassing the sick or single parents.
I honestly don't know how we are going to cope with the loss of money things are tight now, I suppose try and get a council house or housing association but there aren't any in my area which would mean moving and changing the kids schools
I sincerely hope they never touch the pensions, pensions may well be lobbed in or classified as a benefit, however they are contributions that I have paid in my entire working life from my salary!!
Oh they've hit the low incomes first. Your time will come.
I'm not sure of that. Pensioners tend to vote, so antagonising them by cutting the pension could mean a political party might shoot themselves in the foot.
my says it all attitude still applies. I have no idea why the government was paying these amounts to people just because they chose to have children.
the sense of entitlement and outrage from people because the government has chosen not to continue funding endless kids astounds me.
people need to live within their means and stop relying on the government gravy train
It's this government's obsession with getting people into work at any cost. I did some maths last night and the results were interesting.
My daughter is aged 2 and I'm currently a stay at home mum while my partner works. We currently receive tax credits. When my daughter is 3 I will be offered 30 hours a week of free nursery hours for her which will enable me to work while not losing huge amounts of pay to childcare. This will then eliminate the tax credits I get (hooray I hear people say! why should I pay for your decision to have a child etc etc)
However the cost of the free nursery hours will be at least DOUBLE the amount of tax credits I currently get so where is the benefit to the taxpayer? I will probably be in a minimum wage job so won't be paying lots of tax.
The point is, if the government pays to a third party for child care and the parent goes out to work then two people are employed. If the money is simply paid to the parent then no one is employed.
The problem being is there isn't the jobs, also some will put their kids in for 30hours and not go to work. Round here tho it will create a real problem as there are not the spaces, there are also no places to send kids on the holidays. Then with the pension age having gone up grandparents aren't home to help look after the kids.
Good points. The whole plan seemingly hasn't properly been thought through. Nurseries won't get enough money to fully cover the hours anyway.
There's not enough nursery or school places atm here as it is, no jobs lack of decent public transport to get to a job yet they are building another 200 houses when the towns facilities can't cope with what it has. The next town over runs a holiday club but it's tight for spaces as it is and doesn't take kids under 7 so what you're supposed to do with your kids is beyond me not that the job centre or government care. If they were more sensible they would have stopped the nursery funding and put it back to how it was about finding work when your youngest is 7 or even 10 as that would also discourage people from having more kids just to stay at home as they already would be
so effectively you want 7-10years maternity leave paid by the government?
nothing to stop someone else starting up a nursery or holiday club if their is a demand for it is there. which will in itself create jobs too
No i am saying effectively it is probably cheaper to do this for the single parents (most parents choose to go back to work whether single or not, so a small percentage left unless you believe the daily mail) than the way it is currently with the subsidised childcare hours (which are given whether you work or not). I also accept there will always be the odd few that don't want to go to work so trying to force them when their child turns 3 seems stupid as they will just have another one...so by saying they don't have to for a longer time they may not have so many.
I also accept there will always be some unemployed people...so in effect surely its better for it to be people with kids to look after over school leavers etc
Its called the overall big picture which the government choose to ignore unless it benefits the upper classes and big business
The conservative used to spout they were making work pay and by being in work you would be better off, well they just shat on that one yesterday.
I always thought it took two to make a baby (in the traditional way) so unless one of the parent has died or is disabled to the extent they cannot work both parents should be contributing to the childs upbringing. but are u basically saying a single parent should be allowed 7-10yrs off to look after the child and couples should work?
your plan is very flawed, the government are creating jobs and increasing wages you must have missed that bit of the budget. they are increasing apprenticeships for school leavers so they will be trained and easier for them to keep/get jobs
oh and the government is limiting to pay for two children so said single parent wont be able to just have another child (tho how they do this as a single person I wonder! ) over and over so they didnt have to work.
A normal working parent has 9-12 months maternity leave and then goes back to work and earns money to pay for their family. You're suggesting people don't go back to work for 7-10 years it is about the most ridiculous idea I have heard of.
I am sorry but if you want to be a stay at home mum you should make sure your husband earns enough to do that or make sacrifices so you do not have to work not just expect the government to pay for it.
You've missed the whole point of my post which is about the cost effectiveness of subsidising nursery places for children over a parent staying at home. The fact of the matter is it costs the government more to do this than have the mother stay at home. So in effect you actually support people sending their kids to nursery for 30 hours a week at the governments expense and them still staying at home just with no kids to look after.
As for the rest of your post some of it is just funny especially the bit in bold. More zero hour contracts, work fare and government schemes to manipulate figures.
The government is limiting tax credits to two children not other benefits
maybe you should consider moving to another country that will pay you to be a stay at home mum for 7-10 years if you are so unhappy
I actually work (though I have am going to lose £1,500 thanks to Dave so not really worth it) there's no need to try and make it personal just because you keep missing the point...statistically for the amount of single parents or couples that stay at home (which is a small number, most people work, even single parents even if it is part time) it would be cheaper to have them stay at home than it is to subsidise nursery placements especially when you take into consideration there will always be X amount of unemployed people.
There will always be unemployment, whether its habitual or not its something I accepted some time ago, as nothing I could do about it, not how I would want to live but also that I prefer to have such a safety net in place. I would rather the person without a job was raising a child and being a good parent than just bumming about down the pub. My first job was actually at the jobcentre at 16 and I used to think get a job, but on maturing and getting some life experience and perspective I've learned not to be so judgmental
I'm not sure that's entirely true as it misses out of the equation that childminders will be employed who would otherwise be on the dole. Childminders can't look after that many children at a time so there must be quite a lot of them. (6 under 8years not more than 3 of them under 5years and including the childminders own.)
Exactly the point I was making earlier. The government are basically paying people to not look after their kids. It's a rather strange position to take.