Child Benefit Changes

[Beach Hut]

Well you voted for these idiots.

I'm not sure what I'm more angry about. The fact that the Tories are cutting everything that will affect the middle class families who pretty much pay for everything anyway (because they are a soft target), or the fact that the Liberal Democrats are letting them do it. Bunch of twats, I don't think I'll ever vote for them again, all the while Nick Clegg is leading them.

And as for IDS's "universal credit idea. He's too gutless to tell the electorate what the figures are. i.e. how much does he need to implement it, and how much it'll save. I also listened to him on 5 live and he was incredibly unconvincing.

And who was in charge that causes these types of things to happen - oh I expect you have forgotten

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

As far as i cam concerned anyone earning over £50,000 either through one parent or both should not get any kind of child benefit.

we're going round in circles here, you can argue that at this threshold people don't need the money, but people who earn above the national average (in most cases) do so because they've worked fuckin hard and long hours, yes some low earners do so, we are a low paid economy nowadays, but the lazy will also continue to be rewarded.

 

[Simster]

And who was in charge that causes these types of things to happen - oh I expect you have forgotten

No, no I haven't. As I said in my very next post, it was mismanagement from Labour.

I just happen to believe the Tories will never put the needs of society ahead of the ultra wealthy, and the piss poor implementation of a necessary benefit cut just proves the point. You said it yourself: "that can't be right". You're right, it isn't. It's clueless and completely unfair.

 

[Art Vs Science]

Low earners are lazy! nice one. I am f***ed if i wanna pay money out of my tax to support people earning more thanme so argue all you like. How about giving it to old people that cannot afford to eat properly or pay their gas/elec. These ppl claiming are the same people that give their kids X-Boxes or iPhones for christmas. Why should some people who earns LESS than some people claiming it give you any of their tax money, for a 'nice little top up'

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Well I will lose it, but still agree with the change in policy.

Those of us lucky enough to earn enough to be in the 40% Tax Bracket can afford to lose it IMO.

We only use it for spending money for holidays anyway.(Most of my circle of friends actually haven't touched their kids since birth, it gets paid into a separate account and it's simply a savings plan for for their kids university fund.)

 

[ROSM]

Well I will lose it, but still agree with the change in policy.

Those of us lucky enough to earn enough to be in the 40% Tax Bracket can afford to lose it IMO.

We only use it for spending money for holidays anyway.(Most of my circle of friends actually haven't touched their kids since birth, it gets paid into a separate account and it's simply a savings plan for for their kids university fund.)

well lucky you. cant say that is the case for all or even the majority especially when as I've already covered in this thread, the average mortgage for a family house is 250k+

 

[AMEXican Wave]

You can argue about thresholds, and where the cut off point is, but it's always been wrong that someone with no kids on lower money pays tax to subsidise people with kids who earn substantially more.

In principle to me it looks pretty fair.

 

[Art Vs Science]

Well I will lose it, but still agree with the change in policy.

Those of us lucky enough to earn enough to be in the 40% Tax Bracket can afford to lose it IMO.

We only use it for spending money for holidays anyway.(Most of my circle of friends actually haven't touched their kids since birth, it gets paid into a separate account and it's simply a savings plan for for their kids university fund.)

Well said, and nice honesty. my point exactly. Take me to any home where its £50,000 + and i wont see a nearly empty fridge and 3 gas bill reminders. I have a friend who has given up work due to disabilty and the financial support he gets is a disgrace through no fault of his own

 

[Simster]

well lucky you. cant say that is the case for all or even the majority especially when as I've already covered in this thread, the average mortgage for a family house is 250k+

Exactly this. You can't just make the sweeping assumption that everybody earning over x amount is awash with spare cash, because they're not.

Anyway I don't see what would have been so DIFFICULT to implement the necessary cuts such that:

Combined household income < £55k = full child benefits
Combined household income < £65k = half child benefits
else no child benefits

(although obviously the specified income brackets would need proper investigation)

 

[ROSM]

You can argue about thresholds, and where the cut off point is, but it's always been wrong that someone with no kids on lower money pays tax to subsidise people with kids who earn substantially more.

In principle to me it looks pretty fair.

but you can run that argument to anything - health, bins, schools, street maintenance, public transport etc etc

in fact it's the tory way to do so.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

well lucky you. cant say that is the case for all or even the majority especially when as I've already covered in this thread, the average mortgage for a family house is 250k+

As I said in my post, nobody I know who gets it RELIES on it to put food on the table.

It's used for extras or luxuries or put away for the kids future.

BTW, I would also means test the Winter Fuel allowance and the free TV Licence - there are PLENTY of people who get the winter fuel allowance, yet spend the winter on a cruise or in Tenerife.

I guess you'd be aginst that change too.

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

Low earners are lazy! nice one.

NO NO NO I NEVER SAID THAT! I said low earners also worked hard and long hours, I then went on to say it was again rewarding the lazy, and by that I meant those who have never worked a fuckin day in their lives, that's lazy.

with your other point, about YOUR taxes, let's say for agument's sake I earn more than you (I'm not BTW a high earner) your resent your taxes going to me as a parent, but as I earn more than you (again, hypothetically) I am paying more tax than you, where the f*** is that going?

 

[simonsimon]

Gormless george is about to speak @ the irish brigand jolly.

 

[AMEXican Wave]

but you can run that argument to anything - health, bins, schools, street maintenance, public transport etc etc

in fact it's the tory way to do so.

In a sense, but I think regarding health, schools, and public transport, the argument is slightly different. The wealthier will have options with all of these to choose the private route, and less of them will in the end take up the state option.

 

[Art Vs Science]

NO NO NO I NEVER SAID THAT! I said low earners also worked hard and long hours, I then went on to say it was again rewarding the lazy, and by that I meant those who have never worked a fuckin day in their lives, that's lazy.

with your other point, about YOUR taxes, let's say for agument's sake I earn more than you (I'm not BTW a high earner) your resent your taxes going to me as a parent, but as I earn more than you (again, hypothetically) I am paying more tax than you, where the f*** is that going?

I resent my money going to people earning £50,000 + a year, yes i bloody do. for reasons i have already stated, you did not make the lazy comment very clear to be fair, so fair do's. I dont think dole scroungers should get anything either(and let's face it there are loads of them, the ones that simply do not want to work or actively looking) I am sorry, but look at someone earning the higher tax band and compare their lifestyle to the REAL needy and it is not even an arguement IMO.

 

[BLOCK F]

You appear to be doing a good job of missing the whole point of this thread, which comes as no surprise owing to your absurdly miopic view of politics. It's always Labour's fault in your eyes.

We all understand cuts have to be made because of the financial mismanagement of the past government, but how is it fair that in a family of 2 potential earners, the family with one income at £50k will not receive child benefit, whereas the family with two incomes at £40k will do so?

This is poorly thought through policy.

Bit strong from you Simster,even though we do not appear to vote for the same party!
Please read my post again.Where do I blame Labour for everything?I do agree that if the situation is as you have set out re two earners,it is indeed unfair.
The main points I wanted to make were that it is virtually impossible to please everybody all of the time and that these kind of 'unfair' situations have been happening in the benefits system for years.
My remark that it wasn't all bad news referred to the effort on behalf of the Government to make work worthwhile and end the poverty gap.I would applaud that from any party in power.....perhaps not as myopic as you make out!

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

I resent my money going to people earning £50,000 + a year, yes i bloody do. for reasons i have already stated, you did not make the lazy comment very clear to be fair, so fair do's. I dont think dole scroungers should get anything either(and let's face it there are loads of them, the ones that simply do not want to work or actively looking) I am sorry, but look at someone earning the higher tax band and compare their lifestyle to the REAL needy and it is not even an arguement IMO.

This is a fuckin good debate on here, good stuff people. It would be great if there was a system in place where the needy and those in hardship through no fault of there own are supported and given the help they need, but FFS take a look this afternoon in any pub/bookies etc and you'll see examples where the system has let the honest tax payer and the genuine job seeker andor disabled person down badly

 

[ROSM]

As I said in my post, nobody I know who gets it RELIES on it to put food on the table.

It's used for extras or luxuries or put away for the kids future.

BTW, I would also means test the Winter Fuel allowance and the free TV Licence - there are PLENTY of people who get the winter fuel allowance, yet spend the winter on a cruise or in Tenerife.

I guess you'd be aginst that change too.

yes I would because the greatest number of recipients will be worthy beneficiaries and it is relatively cheap to both deliver, implement and police.

Mark my words, what changes and cuts like this will do is reduce spending in the next 12 months and that will increase the chances of a double dip recession.

 

[Beach Hut]

yes I would because the greatest number of recipients will be worthy beneficiaries and it is relatively cheap to both deliver, implement and police.

Mark my words, what changes and cuts like this will do is reduce spending in the next 12 months and that will increase the chances of a double dip recession.

How can something not being implemented till 2013 reduce spending now ?

 

[highway61]

Well said, and nice honesty. my point exactly. Take me to any home where its £50,000 + and i wont see a nearly empty fridge and 3 gas bill reminders. I have a friend who has given up work due to disabilty and the financial support he gets is a disgrace through no fault of his own

I can relate to your friend, pisses me right off when people say to me that "surely there is more you can claim/" errrr NO.