Forum

Replies

• 

  Graeme @ BGS October 4, 2010 at 8:15am

  Can't see it having any impact to my client base. And spot on Karl.
  
  Thinking aloud would we start seeing the so called "middle class" getting there kids out mowingtheir lawns to make up for the short fall :-)
  • 

    Classic Gardens > Graeme @ BGS October 4, 2010 at 8:24am

    Great posts I agree with Karl £44 is a great wage. 
    
    But like graeme has said, I think a lot more people would get out there doing work for themselves which would have a knock on effect to domestic gardening. 
    
    Graeme @ BGS said:

    Can't see it having any impact to my client base. And spot on Karl.Thinking aloud would we start seeing the so called "middle class" getting there kids out mowingtheir lawns to make up for the short fall :-)
• 

  chris nangle October 4, 2010 at 8:39am

  all benefits should be means tested £44k is way to much to be getting hand outs,have as many kids as you like but there should be no child benefit after the first,why should breading be rewarded .
  I would also stop all winter fuel payments to expats you leave the uk you loose any right to vote and benefits.
  I dont think it will have any impact on our work to be honest it will just upset a few mail readers.
• 

  chris nangle October 4, 2010 at 9:00am

  i wouls say your pretty much spot on Karl
  
  Karl Harrison said:

  May be we could consider honing in on who the key users of these services are.
  
  Would you pay someone to service your garden if you earn't 44K, who then is paying for garden maintenace and at what level would this change.
  
  Consider the disposable income of an average family with two children, would £100 per month actually be that much for those that can already afford the luxury of having someone service their garden.
  
  How much does the average customer spend per month on this service and if the had £100 less to spend for what ever reason what would they decide to cut back on? the garden still needs maintaining and if they have to work then they would would either work more or maintain their own garden. (I think work more)
  
  My collegue is as tight as they come, he moved house last week and thought about using the services of the "Home Pack" by the removal firm. £120 they were going to charge, he said this was too expensive and reconned on doing this himself. I asked what do you earn a day, he works in London and earns rather a lot more. So I said - so assuming that you earn hundreds per day this in effect is what you are paying to pack up your own stuff, are you mad. Why not then go to work, earn your hundreds and pay someone a lot less to do this work for you, works out one heck of a lot cheaper!
  
  thoughts
• PRO

  Stephen @ SJS October 4, 2010 at 9:03am

  The reason so called middle class earners are being targeted is because the financial institutions cocked up big time, Why should people have to suffer because of the banks inept performances & we are not out of the woods yet with regards to banks predicament ! I look at the big picture & say good on you if you are getting subsidised in order to make ends meet in these difficult times it would be better for gardeners etc as they would still have some disposable income, travellers leave mess wherever they have been do they contribute towards clearing up of mess or pay tax contributions, immigrants come into this country & get treated better than our own citizen's why shouldn't someone earn 44k & not get child benefit ?
• 

  Andy Thorne October 4, 2010 at 10:09am

  If I understand the proposals I heard yesterday the earning figure is looking at household income, so for me that of myself and my wife, not of an individual's wage, unless, I guess they are a single parent...
  
  This surely would mean a lot more of us would be affected!
• 

  David Cox October 4, 2010 at 10:32am

  in all fairness this was one of those benefits whereby your taxed with the right hand and given it back with the left. if you look at an income distribution graph, you will see that the majority of people / households earn less than this, so it will be a pin prick on the problem.
  Until the leeches, who by their nature show up statistically as the most 'needy' at the bottom, are dealt with the problem of cost will still be rather big.
• 

  chris nangle October 4, 2010 at 11:32am

  my pint colin child benfit for the first kid but thats it firing out kids should not be a job choice
  
  colin said:

  leaches that go and have 6-7 kids especially
  
  David Cox said:

  in all fairness this was one of those benefits whereby your taxed with the right hand and given it back with the left. if you look at an income distribution graph, you will see that the majority of people / households earn less than this, so it will be a pin prick on the problem.
  Until the leeches, who by their nature show up statistically as the most 'needy' at the bottom, are dealt with the problem of cost will still be rather big.
• 

  Andy Thorne October 4, 2010 at 12:23pm

  OK. I was wrong it is only for those individuals that pay higher rate tax, so those who are on £44k+ atm.
• 

  Fenlandphil October 4, 2010 at 1:26pm

  Child benifit is a useful universal benifit. It should be left alone, it could be treated as income and taxed at a rate to ensure that high earners lose the actual financial value.
  If you start with child benifit winter fuel allowance and old age pensions will follow.
  If any of you have had to try sorting out forms relating to means tested benifits as I had to for my mums housing benifit, then you wouldn't be that keen on means testing.
  There are too many people unable to cope with the paperwork who really need help and don't get it, the fiddlers and scroungers will always work the system whatever their income level.
  I know of one who had an income in excess of £40k and was getting emg for his son at £30 a week.