The budget

What happens if you have triplets, or your 2nd child turns out to be twins?
 
Osborne should have gone further and scrapped all interest tax relief on buy to let's.
 
twist said:
Perhaps this will help..... £50k per year is £3,350 per month after tax if each earn 25k PA.

Lets say the couple have a mortgage for a standard house, thats about £1000 per month, next bills and food, another £500 per month. They both work full time, travel costs, £350 per month. They have 2 kids in full time nursery, £1500 per month.

How much is left? £0, oh except the £100 odd they get from the state which might be spent on a few days out over that month to buy the odd ice cream or perhaps a fish and chips. Likely that it would go to a bill though.
Click to expand...

So don't have two kids. Get a cheaper house. There is now a wadge of extra cash right there. Move closer to work, cuts commuting costs down.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
So don't have two kids. Get a cheaper house.
Click to expand...

Next youll be telling people not to have any children, guess thats a luxury for the rich not the average hard working family who prefer to go to work than sit on their ass and claim benefits, cheaper house? Thats an average house well under 200k. Not sure where you live that you can get 100k houses.

You know there is such a thing as getting a new job after purchasing a house dont you? Next you will be telling people to sell their houses to move closer to work, forget the costs involved just to save a few £s on fuel.

BTW this is not my personal situation, I was playing devils advocate using the figures quoted to try add some balance, some people think 50k is a lot, its not.
 
Last edited:
Cartus said:
There was a time fairly recently when the population of the UK was falling. We need economies to demonstrate growth and one way to achieve that is to increase the population.

Why do you think Steve, the government allow the levels of immigration we've witnessed over the past few years? It stimulates economic growth is the answer. This government knew they would be re-elected on how well the economy had apparently performed rather than losing the election over immigration. It worked it seemed.
Click to expand...

Breeding lots of children from poor backgrounds doesn't stimulate the economy. Clever able people tend to breed clever able children that get good jobs. Stupid incapable people breed stupid incapable children. Stupid incapable people have crap jobs and little money. Clever able people tend to have good jobs and lots of money.

Giving stupid incapable people extra funds to enable them to breed stupid incapable broods just makes the problem worse.

Immigration is a red herring here. The crux of the problem is my point above.
 
twist said:
Next youll be telling people not to have any children, guess thats a luxury for the rich not the average hard working family who prefer to go to work than sit on their ass and claim benefits, cheaper house? Thats an average house well under 200k. Not sure where you live that you can get 100k houses.

You know there is such a thing as getting a new job after purchasing a house dont you?
Click to expand...

Plenty of places well under £100k and certainly under £200k.

Kids can share bedrooms. Families can have one child, or none if they cannot afford to have.

Children IMHO are a luxury to be afforded and paid for by the parents. Christ there's free schooling for them, just how much more should we as a society pay for other people's choices.

Perhaps the tax payer should buy me a Rolex watch as I'd rather have that than a child.
 
twist said:
Perhaps this will help..... £50k per year is £3,350 per month after tax if each earn 25k PA.

Lets say the couple have a mortgage for a standard house, thats about £1000 per month, next bills and food, another £500 per month. They both work full time, travel costs, £350 per month. They have 2 kids in full time nursery, £1500 per month.

How much is left? £0, oh except the £100 odd they get from the state which might be spent on a few days out over that month to buy the odd ice cream or perhaps a fish and chips. Likely that it would go to a bill though.
Click to expand...


£350 a month for travel. Where to? I've never spent more than £100 on petrol or diesel and running costs and accounting for depreciation of the vehicles value, still wouldn't bring it up to £175. As for childcare costs, if you can't afford for one parent to give up work and look after the kids, then you can't afford kids and should only have them when you can afford it. Worked for my parents and same for me. Yes we recieved child benefit, but it hardly makes up for the loss of a wage.
 
nilagin said:
£350 a month for travel. Where to? I've never spent more than £100 on petrol or diesel and running costs and accounting for depreciation of the vehicles value, still wouldn't bring it up to £175. As for childcare costs, if you can't afford for one parent to give up work and look after the kids, then you can't afford kids and should only have them when you can afford it. Worked for my parents and same for me. Yes we recieved child benefit, but it hardly makes up for the loss of a wage.
Click to expand...

My fuel alone is £240+ per month.
 
ST4 said:
Plenty of places well under £100k and certainly under £200k.

Kids can share bedrooms. Families can have one child, or none if they cannot afford to have.

Children IMHO are a luxury to be afforded and paid for by the parents. Christ there's free schooling for them, just how much more should we as a society pay for other people's choices.

Perhaps the tax payer should buy me a Rolex watch as I'd rather have that than a child.
Click to expand...

All im pointing out is that 50k doesnt go as far as people think it does, I realise that people shouldnt have kids if they cant afford it and I agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
nilagin said:
£350 a month for travel. Where to? I've never spent more than £100 on petrol or diesel and running costs and accounting for depreciation of the vehicles value, still wouldn't bring it up to £175. As for childcare costs, if you can't afford for one parent to give up work and look after the kids, then you can't afford kids and should only have them when you can afford it. Worked for my parents and same for me. Yes we recieved child benefit, but it hardly makes up for the loss of a wage.
Click to expand...

You do realise not everyone lives next door work dont you? I think you shouldve declined the child benefit seeing as you sit so high on your horse. £175 is just over 2 tanks of fuel, at 550 miles a tank in a diesel thats only 55 miles both ways per day over a month without any weekend driving if you work 5 days a week!
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
My fuel alone is £240+ per month.
Click to expand...

Surely thats impossible?! Nobody can spend more than £100 per month on fuel, servicing, insurance and depreciation!! :D
 
Last edited:
twist said:
You do realise not everyone lives next door work dont you? I think you shouldve declined the child benefit seeing as you sit so high on your horse. £175 is just over 2 tanks of fuel, at 550 miles a tank in a diesel thats only 55 miles both ways per day over a month without any weekend driving if you work 5 days a week!
Click to expand...

A small return for the s*** load of tax and NI I have paid over the last 36yrs. You need to get an economical diesel. The one I had would do 60 mpg and only cost £80 a go to fill up giving anything from 600 - 700 miles per tank.
 
nilagin said:
A small return for the s*** load of tax and NI I have paid over the last 36yrs. You need to get an economical diesel. The one I had would do 60 mpg and only cost £80 a go to fill up giving anything from 600 - 700 miles per tank.
Click to expand...

So do a lot of people including myself. What makes you extra special that you think you should be able claim for it and others cant?

Economical diesel, well there goes the saving you were trying to point out, more economical diesels cost more money, in order to make up the extra cost of the (newer more economical diesel) car the driver would need to have to do a shedload more miles. 50 miles extra per tank based on your 600 mile figure vs 550, thats about a gallon of fuel, a gallon is £5, so based on your advice the driver would save up to around £10 per month on fuel if they still used the stated 2 tanks of fuel. Excellent idea.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Perhaps this will help..... £50k per year is £3,350 per month after tax if each earn 25k PA.
Click to expand...
I'm still having trouble with those figures, We brought up 2 kids, granted we had the standard child benefit,
Both went to private nursery, we had a mortgage, and we jointly earned circa £35K at the time
we lived "well" and within our means, we had no further help from anyway.

we went without some things so the kids didn't.
(And yes we struggled at times, just as our parents did)
Some people today (generalising) think that everything should be handed to them on a plate.

We couldn't afford new cars, (in fact I used to by mine from the local auction) the latest TV's etc, in fact it was rented for years.
Mobile phones? what were they?

I'm still astounded that people cannot live within their means or on 50K a year!
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
Again IIRC, the tax rate on dividends is lower than the general rate (10% as opposed to 20% base rate).
Click to expand...
Only for lower rate tax payers. who get a 10% credit, making the effective rate nil.
Higher rate tax payers pay tax on dividends at 32.5%, but after the 10% credit this is an effective rate of 25%.
 
Nod said:
IIRC, all dividends are taxed at source and that tax isn't refundable.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. A nominal 10% tax credit is available for dividends because the profits they are paid out of have already been taxed (via corporation tax). However, you are correct that the dividend credit cannot be refunded if you have a net income tax credit - in this case, the remaining credit is wasted.
 
It p***es me off that people expect society to pay for their 3rd and 4th kid. Personally I would have capped it at one.
 
Cobra said:
I'm still having trouble with those figures, We brought up 2 kids, granted we have the standard child benefit,
Both went to private nursery, we had a mortgage, and we jointly earned circa £35K at the time
we lived "well" and had no further help from anyway.

We just lived within our means went without some things so the kids didn't.
(And yes we struggled at times, just as our parents did)
Some people today (generalising) think that everything should be handed to them on a plate.

We couldn't afford new cars, in fact I used to by mine from the local auction) the latest TV, in fact in was rented for years.
Mobile phones? what were they?

I'm still astounded that people cannot live within their means or on 50K a year!
Click to expand...

The figures are about right...

Lets say the average mortgage is £185,000, at only 3% interest with 5k fees over 25yrs thats £900 per month, Ive just checked the figures. Gas/elec/telly/broadband/council tax and food is around £5-600. Thats 1400-1500 gone already, then you have nursery full time at £35-40 a day x 20 days a month for each child, thats 1400-1600 a month. Call it 3k. Fuel at 175pm is 2 tanks each driver, about £335.

25k is £1,673.93 after tax x2.

Thats without any luxuries like mobiles etc, its a home, heat, food, telly and travel to go to work.

I really think people may be misinterpreting my post, I totally agree that people shouldnt have anything handed to them on a silver platter, its not the way I was raised and I was just pointing out that its not a lot of money based on a figure of 50k. Like I said to Steve, its not my case... besides the fuel as thats roughly my mileage in a month so I know what it costs me. I just thought Id run the figures for balance. :)
 
Last edited:
twist said:
The figures are about right...
Click to expand...
I'm not disputing your figures, or your post, I'm sure there are people living like that but still expecting hand outs?

My original point was that I can't believe that the government are giving hand outs to people potentially on just under £100k ( jointly)
Its hardly what you would call the bread line is it?
What I am saying is that people, couples, should take responsibility for their own lives and change it, if they can't live on ( Up to ) £98k a year,
 
Cobra said:
I'm not disputing your figures, or your post, I'm sure there are people living like that but still expecting hand outs?

My original point was that I can't believe that the government are giving hand outs to people potentially on just under £100k ( jointly)
Its hardly what you would call the bread line is it?
What I am saying is that people, couples, should take responsibility for their own lives and change it, if they can't live on ( Up to ) £98k a year,
Click to expand...

Well, as others have said, they put a LOT of money into the system every month unlike some who get everything for free for sitting on their buttocks all day, and as you can see those numbers are very tight every month (without clothing and other necessaries), why shouldnt people who work get some form of a 'break' for paying for other people that cant be bothered to do a days work.

At 100k Id totally agree, thats easily manageable anywhere in the country. They need to review the situation, but the difference in cost of living in various areas of the UK doesnt help the situation. Im glad theyve capped it at 2 kids and brought in other measures in the new budget to (try) make it more difficult for the claim culture.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
I've just bought one - £30 road tax - that looks like it's goign upto £140? (110gm)
Click to expand...

Yep the government have done a very smart and crafty thing over the last 15 years they have lined up the emissions bands to reflect the overall requirement to lower emissions cars and therefore reduce pollution. Now that honeymoon phase is over and the average smart buyer has a vehicle with very low emissions its time for a reality check. Now all the roads need repairing its back to a reasonable and sustainable level of emmisions tax. The previous system of £30/£30 a year was never sustainable.
 
Byker28i said:
I've just bought one - £30 road tax - that looks like it's goign upto £140? (110gm)
Click to expand...

Is that because the diesels they were promoting everyone to switch to that were supposedly so much better for the environment arent really, and now they found another way to increase the nations taxes and fuel costs because pretty much everyones bought a diesel.

Im waiting to see what mine goes up to grrr.
 
POAH said:
its so stupid because its only 50k for one person so two people can earn 49k each for a total of 98k but if someone earns 50k and their partner 12k they don't get it. the tories baffle me
Click to expand...

If you are referring to Child Tax Credit here, you are wrong. The threshold is on the 'household' income and not on the individuals income.
Neither my wife or I earn over £50k individually and we get nothing for our only son.
 
Byker28i said:
I've just bought one - £30 road tax - that looks like it's goign upto £140? (110gm)
Click to expand...

I don't think existing cars on the road are affected but may be wrong, I believe the new bands will affect new vehicles fro 2017?
 
twist said:
Is that because the diesels they were promoting everyone to switch to that were supposedly so much better for the environment arent really, and now they found another way to increase the nations taxes and fuel costs because pretty much everyones bought a diesel.

Im waiting to see what mine goes up to grrr.
Click to expand...

Diesel in general is worse for the environment than petrol because of the high level of particulates it produces, there is established evidence that diesel smoke in built up areas is becoming increasingly damaging to respiratory health.
 
Mr Bump said:
Diesel in general is worse for the environment than petrol because of the high level of particulates it produces, there is established evidence that diesel smoke in built up areas is becoming increasingly damaging to respiratory health.
Click to expand...

I know mate, that was kind of my point. The tax was supposedly cheaper than petrol cars based on emissions.
 
Last edited:
Mr Bump said:
Diesel in general is worse for the environment than petrol because of the high level of particulates it produces, there is established evidence that diesel smoke in built up areas is becoming increasingly damaging to respiratory health.
Click to expand...

Indeed but as most 'evidence' for and against is clouded in badly reported b*****ks its hard to know what is good and better.
 
Mr Bump said:
Diesel in general is worse for the environment than petrol because of the high level of particulates it produces,
Click to expand...
I think that most sensible people knew that, why the hell the government "pushed it" I'll never know.
 
Cobra said:
I think that most sensible people knew that, why the hell the government "pushed it" I'll never know.
Click to expand...

I dunno if people really care to be fair about other peoples health though do they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top