Child Benefit

[vetran]

you forget that the more you risk the more you gain.

My First house was 2.5 times combined Salary, that trebled in value to allow me to buy a house 10 times my Salary with a mortgage of 3 times my Salary.


Now if we hadn't pushed ourselves we would be living a 2 bedroom flat.

We took calculated risks and they paid off, but a number of times we could have been hit with a storm of bad luck and be bankrupt.

Yes it is likely you will be out of a job now. After years of overspending and unlimited immigration by our government there are few jobs and plenty of applicants.

When I was young you were unlikely to be out of a job if you had a reasonable level of experience, record and qualifications and were under 50. So I planned to be debt free and reasonably self sufficient by my 50's I made this decision back in my 20's.

[formant]

Doing this:

[...] what they get should be calculated in regard to how much they have paid in

Would no doubt enable those who've paid in to maintain their existing outgoings for a limited period of time (in Germany for example this is related to how long you've been employed prior to your benefits claim). Whether that's an iPhone contract, a nursery contract, or a sizable mortgage shouldn't concern anyone in those cases. 'Limited time' being the key here (no long term unemployment incentive) as well as basing it on how much was paid in/previous earnings.

So someone who hasn't paid into the tax system should only get the bare minimum (which shouldn't put anyone in the position to afford Sky or iPhone contracts but I guess we all know that many claimants still seem to have those).

I don't believe in a welfare system that's exclusively for the bottom feeders.

[stek]

Child Benefit

Doing this:



Would no doubt enable those who've paid in to maintain their existing outgoings for a limited period of time (in Germany for example this is related to how long you've been employed prior to your benefits claim). Whether that's an iPhone contract, a nursery contract, or a sizable mortgage shouldn't concern anyone in those cases. 'Limited time' being the key here (no long term unemployment incentive) as well as basing it on how much was paid in/previous earnings.

So someone who hasn't paid into the tax system should only get the bare minimum (which shouldn't put anyone in the position to afford Sky or iPhone contracts but I guess we all know that many claimants still seem to have those).

I don't believe in a welfare system that's exclusively for the bottom feeders.

Post of the day.

[RasputinDude]

Doing this:



Would no doubt enable those who've paid in to maintain their existing outgoings for a limited period of time (in Germany for example this is related to how long you've been employed prior to your benefits claim). Whether that's an iPhone contract, a nursery contract, or a sizable mortgage shouldn't concern anyone in those cases. 'Limited time' being the key here (no long term unemployment incentive) as well as basing it on how much was paid in/previous earnings.

So someone who hasn't paid into the tax system should only get the bare minimum (which shouldn't put anyone in the position to afford Sky or iPhone contracts but I guess we all know that many claimants still seem to have those).

I don't believe in a welfare system that's exclusively for the bottom feeders.

Completely agree with formant here. I think that it makes economic sense to support people who have lost a job after contributing for years rather than punishing them by giving them the absolute minimum. Keeping someone in their home, not causing depression through worry and giving them breathing space to find a new job has to be better than giving them the absolute minimum.

[Old Hack]

Completely agree with formant here. I think that it makes economic sense to support people who have lost a job after contributing for years rather than punishing them by giving them the absolute minimum. Keeping someone in their home, not causing depression through worry and giving them breathing space to find a new job has to be better than giving them the absolute minimum.

Me too. d000hgs hard and fast rules simply don't address all of the proper issues at hand. Germany, Norway and other countries have it well sorted out, as do France strangely.

[BrilloPad]

you forget that the more you risk the more you gain.

My First house was 2.5 times combined Salary, that trebled in value to allow me to buy a house 10 times my Salary with a mortgage of 3 times my Salary.


Now if we hadn't pushed ourselves we would be living a 2 bedroom flat.

Easy to do in a rising house market. Not so easy now.

I pity the youngsters these days who have not had the benefit of massive house price inflation caused by easy credit.

[Old Hack]

Easy to do in a rising house market. Not so easy now.

I pity the youngsters these days who have not had the benefit of massive house price inflation caused by easy credit.

It'll crash one day, it will have to, unless the banks change ratios of mortgage. I defintely see 50 year mortgages coming the norm if they want house prices to keep rising. At the moment, in the South East, to need 2 people earning 40k to be able to afford even vaguely presentable accomodation. The tenant in one of my houses, a bungalow, tells me he can't afford to buy the house, despite wanting to, and he's closer to 75k. Madness.

[formant]

It'll crash one day, it will have to, unless the banks change ratios of mortgage. I defintely see 50 year mortgages coming the norm if they want house prices to keep rising. At the moment, in the South East, to need 2 people earning 40k to be able to afford even vaguely presentable accomodation. The tenant in one of my houses, a bungalow, tells me he can't afford to buy the house, despite wanting to, and he's closer to 75k. Madness.

Yeah, the South East is particuarly bad in that (well, by 'bad' I mean expensive). We lived in Buckinghamshire before buying our current place. We were on just under 70k combined at the time and got an Agreement in Principle for up to 250k. We ended up moving to a bit further north to Northamptonshire and spending less than that on quite a sizable and presentable place, as staying within the Home Counties would have meant we'd have had to settle for something tiny or ex-local authority. *shudder*

[MarillionFan]

Well for me it's simple.

If you're working and have kids you get a different tax code to those who aren't. Same with marriage. Don't take the money in the first place.

[formant]

Well for me it's simple.

If you're working and have kids you get a different tax code to those who aren't. Same with marriage. Don't take the money in the first place.

Why change tax code for marriage? Because they've taken away legal aid for family law and people need to save up for the divorce?