to think that a girl called Jack should stick to budget cookery tips and NOT bash

(180 Posts)
LordElpuss Wed 09-Oct-13 16:58:49

people who are losing their child benefit

Guardian article

fatlazymummy Fri 11-Oct-13 11:46:42

trumpet it used to be defined by the occupation of the male wage earner, so as a child you would be defined by your father's occupation (manual labour = w/c ,etc), then by your husband's occupation if you married.
Of course there's cultural elements to account for also.

frumpet Fri 11-Oct-13 11:46:47

Actually i have decided i am upper class grin , if kate middleton can do it , i too will get a nice bottom and marry well !

There are loads of exclamations on here about how much money people on £50k must have, because thinking in gross salary means you don't see how much disappears before it gets to your bank account.

In fact, a bit of calculating based on my own personal circumstances indicates that (if I were a single parent), I'd get more money in my bank each month on £26k a year (plus tax credits) than I would on £40k (where I wouldn't be entitled to them). In both cases I'd still be paying student loan and pension contributions, but it would come out a bit more on the topped up income than the higher one. It might even itself out more based on taking childcare vouchers on the £40k salary, but I wouldn't actually be better off. I'd still have the same expenses too. The system is a bit of a mess, although I'm sure UC will make sure that the topped up income reduces significantly (because that's what the coalition is all about, making sure people are entitled to less hmm).

And the guardian article does claim that people on £50k have £1000 a week. You can't not pay tax and NI (certainly not on PAYE, and it wouldn't be advisable otherwise) so they don't have £1000 a week. People on twice that salary have about £1000 net.

And it all has nothing to do with my actual salary which is neither £40k nor £26k, and not high enough to lose CB.

The pricing this is more a rant at the guardian. Sure on jack's blog it's all part of a painful story of accumulating store cupboard stuff gradually and eating cheap stuff bought in bulk until you can't face it again.

But on the guardian it's contextless. It looks like a recipe that you could actually procure the ingredients for and make for that price. But you can't buy 2p of oil, or one stock cube, a teaspoon of dried herb or spice or a bit of a sainsbos value tub of yoghurt. You have to buy a pack of stock cubes, a bottle of oil, a packet of herb or spices, and the whole tub of yoghurt. If you're hoping that it will come in at the price specified, you'll be bitterly disappointed.

Jaçk has had to work hard to make sure that she can produce food at those costs. And a lot of meal planning must go in to making sure that you use up all the yoghurt before it goes off etc. in the guardian it's just presented as 'ooh, look how cheaply you can eat', which only encourages people to think that food poverty isn't really an issue.

merrymouse Fri 11-Oct-13 17:33:44

Re: arguments about the lifestyle you can expect to live on £50K and whether you do or don't need an extra £80 a month, that isn't really the point.

Plenty of people benefit from healthcare, pensions and school even though they could afford to opt out of the system and pay privately. Somebody on £50K a year pays about £14K in taxes. I am sure the Conservatives would love to make that tax bill at least £80 a month smaller, so either way, the higher earner is probably compensated in the end, and the pot available for benefits becomes smaller.

A system where we have universal benefits, universal support for the NHS and faith in the state school system depends on everybody taking part, both as recipients and contributors. (And we can all expect to be one or the other at various points in our lives).

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now