LondonMix

ditto Voyageur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She sounds like someone who was concerned about > her child to me - not an aggressive cow. The kid > was hardly putting itself at risk sitting in a > pram.... > > Etta 166 had the best advice above - that way > nobody is unduly worried/frightened. Simple.

Oh I agree. Almost everyone has been hit in someway by the cuts (myself included!) I wish I could find a really clear picture of the cuts on how they are affecting different groups somewhere so I could get a better feeling about which policies I support. Right now, I only understand the ones the affect me directly (and largely support them). Anyone have a credible source?

As long as they offer it to all businesses and aren't showing favouritism I think its great. There have been studies suggesting that the physical appearance of an area has a quantifiable impact on how people behave and is an integral part of regeneration / crime prevention.

Jessie, forgive me as I have never qualified for this and am less familiar with the changes. However, I am trying to reconcile the "hit" you mention with this summary I have found in the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17126987 It appears that you need to be on a household income of at least 40k to be worse off following the changes and that for the poorest there has actually been an increase. The BBC's information is often outdated though so I'd be interested in hearing more on this if you have different information. Thanks, LM

MrsS, I fully agree. From an outsiders perspective I think it's more striking -- I've also been here close to 10 years. There are social distinctions most places but here the idea of social-class (more than wealth) persists more strongly and with much more depth. Everything from the food you eat to the sports you watch / play, which supermarket you shop at to the way you speak to how you were probably educated feeds into it. I am sure its improving and has changed a lot compared to times gone by for all the reasons people have said but from an outsiders perspective it still makes an impression! Also, not at my current firm, but during my time here in the UK, I have seen people turned down for jobs because of class background (though immigrants, particularly from the West, get a pass on this I find).

Sorry, misread your post.

Try Natural Curtain Company and have a wide variety (style and price) of fabrics. They do made to measure as well as off the peg and if you want to, you can source your own fabric. They did our lounge curtains recently and were fantastic. www.naturalcurtaincompany.co.uk/

Trying to decide what is "fair" compared to other professions, be they cleaners or doctors, totally misses the point. Salaries are determined by supply and demand. This in turn is determined largely by what parents are able to pay and how nannying costs stack up against other child care options (including staying home, child minders, etc) which is demand vs. what alternative professions and pay a nanny could do with their skill set and how much more or less they would enjoy doing these other jobs which is supply. The market will set the rate and during a recession, real wages for virtually all professions are declining.

I think anyone who reads the first link DJ posts will get a reality check on "high London wages". A household income of 60k puts one in the top 17% of households in London. So even a single parent that loses 100% of child benefit (you start losing a part of benefit at 50k and 100% of the benefit by 60k) is still relatively well off by London standards. Its difficult to argue that a household in the top 20% of household incomes in London deserves to recieve benefits in the current economic climate. Everyone in London feels broke because no matter what you earn, as most people live in a neighbourhood that sucks up most of their disposable income after childcare. I have colleagues in South Ken, who are still renting with 2 kids and feel like they don't have a penny to spare due to the high cost of living in London. I think this is because prices went up so quickly that people already feel like they have been forced out of areas they always assumed they'd be able to afford.

I'm having one now :)

I can't say how it is now vs how it was as I am not from this lovely island nation originally. Still, just because people at times move up or down a class, that doesn't negate that the labels are still meaningful to a lot people's way of thinking of themselves. Social mobility is really no where near high enough in the UK for class not to have any social / cultural traits. And that's my experience as an outsider. A lot of the Americans I know are really struck by this when they get here. Edited to add: I agree though that money has less to do with it. A plumber making 75k a year probably would still not consider themselves middle-class culturally I think.

Interesting question. I have to say yes! Part of it has to do with the lack of social mobility combined with a strong sense of socially belonging to a certain class, which is more important than earnings as such. The socio-economic group called the "middle class" here tend to be defined as well-educated professionals that make a "comfortable" living but who still have to work to survive. They are also characterised by certain attitudes and expectations regarding behaviours etc- just look at the thread on people leaving rubbish on the street here on the forum! The gist is that given the products the offender used, s/he must be affluent and really should know better! Class has always been a mix of specific economic circumstances and social background so I don't think any of that is new.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,967696 This is one regarding child benefit.

I've got no guilt as I worked hard to get where I am and don't come from a wealthy background. Still, based on some comments on the forum some of the middle class in Dulwich seem to be confused and think "middle class" means average. Just wanted to provide a bit of a reality check as there are lots of threads discussing the various government cuts at the moment. Some forumites are "outraged" that their nannies will be limited to only 1 session of Sure Start a week so the program can better reach its target audience. Some are even threatening to commit tax fraud to keep their child benefit! ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Guardian readers on average earn ?30,500 per > year > > compared to the UK average of ?21,000 and are > > twice as likely as the average UK adult to earn > > ?40,000 or more. > > MIddle Class guilt RIGHT THERE

Much worse than I realised! No idea where to get the 1950s budget but I think its fair to state over 60s make up much larger percentage of the population now than they would have then and that this demographic change is a major contributor to the ballooning welfare expenditure...

For some civil servants avg. lifetime earnings are indexed pre-retirement as part of the civil service pension. However, Dulwich Girl, the point people are trying to make is that linking a stream of cash flows to inflation at best protects you from the impact of inflation but you cannot gain anything in real terms. Mervin King therefore is not incentivised to generate high inflation. Unless you are suggesting he is trying to arbitrage CPI vs RPI or something...

My comment re-pensions was joke- though clearly not a very good one! Another reason why the welfare state is larger don't forget is pensions, which when they were first brought in were only set a few years short of average life expectancy...

HMRC have already come up with a method. Its up to high-rate tax payers if we want to knowingly commit tax fraud. If HMRC don't make the savings they are anticipating and suspect widespread fraud, there are other alternatives that don't necessarily have to cost the earth to administer.

That's nice. What do you propose to cut instead to avoid means testing this currently universal benefit? Or perhaps you'd prefer to pay more tax? Edited to add: don't underestimate people. Most fully understand the issue but the vast majority who are not affected by the means testing rightly won't be sympathetic and those of us who are impacted won't automatically oppose a policy out of self-interest but rather will take a broader view regarding what's going on in the economy and society right now. slipons Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mrs T, Absolutely, i have written to my MP and > told them in no uncertain terms about my future > voting intentions due to this. In terms of Demo's, > i am struggling to find traction mainly due to a) > People don't understand the implications yet (e.g. > Benefits in Kind, other income, bonuses will all > be taken into account) & b) It now affects only > families with a single high earner, so most two > earner families just under the threshold are doing > fine out of this! > > There are a number of e-petitions on the internet, > but take-up is low due to the above. If you follow > me on twitter @slipons1 hopefully we can get a > number of like-minded individuals together to take > action. > > DaveR > As always, everyone is entitled to their views, > but my personal one is to value universal child > benefit due to the below principles; > > Promoting ?horizontal? equity between people of > similar incomes, with and without children; > > Providing a contribution from society as a whole > to the next generation; > > Giving a stable element at times of financial > insecurity caused by, for example, insecure > employment or family breakdown; > > Offering an independent income for women

Agree that household income should be the test Edited following for wise comments of Wishfulthinking!

My thoughts exactly. Heroin really sells itself, no? Jessie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > there's a marketing technique for heroin??

Agree. Perhaps in future state pension will be linked to how naby children (with jobs) you'ce raised! ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where I am optomistic is that we have had several > years of baby boom, almost uniquely in western > Europe (though I think France has too), spurred to > somme extent by immigration . Whilst this has > caused enormous pressure on housing and education > and health, this means taht we will have far more > younger people and tax base to service and pay for > our growing number of oldies in the future. Places > like Gernmany and Italy will be crucified by their > ageaing populations combined with negative > trending birth rates in the future. I also think > we are still significanytly more of an open > society than Germany, France and Italy for > example.

Of course you're right Jessie!

Yes, if you assume most people are prepared to commit tax fraud. I imagine if that happens, HMRC will just make it an automatic change to higher rate tax payers tax codes. Everyone can then claim it but an automatic tax adjustment will hit those who earn over 50k if they have children. There are very easy ways to make it work...

I have no idea how this managed to descend into class war? Why do you think that the middle class don?t work / work hard? Do you think after you finish university someone just gives you a bank card to use as you see fit? Most professionals work very long hours / travel / work weekends as part of their contract whenever is necessary (which is often) without any extra pay. Lord knows I?d love one of these easy middle-class jobs I hear so much about that require no hard work, no intelligence or skill! Edited to recognise trolling