Child Benefit Changes

[Tesco in Disguise]

So what you are saying, by extension, is that re-distribution of wealth by the compulsory seizing or part-seizing of material assets is morally right. Ergo, a belief in a socialist state is also morally right and anyone who favours a system where assets that have already been taxed at least once, often twice and in many cases three or more times should be allowed to be passed down to their children without suffering any further tax, is morally wrong.

i was so worried you hadn't understood. well done.

I just don't understand how inheritance tax can be anything other than the fairest way to tax people. Lets face it, what you inherit is an accident of birth. Sure it's been taxed already, but then VAT is another tax on already taxed money and I don't see people clamouring to have that removed.

correct.

I'm all up for providing for those that fall on hard times but re-distribution of wealth - what a crock of shit. I work hard for my money and I want it kept in my family, not given to some chav that pops out 6 kids by 6 different fathers.

So I work hard, save my pennies buying a little property along the way to look after me in my old age. I want the benefit of my hard work to go to my children. I've paid my tax on my income and all the taxes on my properties. Thanks to a rise house market, on paper I leave over the threshold and so the government wants to take more ??

Alternatively I'll piss away all the money I earn and expect the state to look after me in my old age ?

The tax is anti-saving and those that support it are only envious of those that have either been lucky or worked their arses off.

I would support a single point of tax - the tax on income. Scrap VAT, road tax etc and just raise the income tax bands accordingly.

ffs, put you daily mail down for one second and try and concentrate on a meritocratic society.

please do buy a pension plan. no-one's saying to not do that. you should be 'pissing your money away' in your old age. you can't take it with you.

if i die penniless, leaving your children money necessarily disadvantages mine. and seeing as neither had any say in their start in life, this is morally wrong.

 

[kevtherev]

I've got a better idea. Any woman who has more than two kids, from two different farthers and is not in a stable realationship. Staple her fanny flaps together, so she can no longer breed and drain money from decent working people. The government should give out food and clothes tokens anyway, to those people who have no jobs. So as to make sure the money is spent on food for the kids. Not fags, booze and drugs for the so called parents.

 

[e77]

I've got a better idea. Any woman who has more than two kids, from two different farthers and is not in a stable realationship. Staple her fanny flaps together, so she can no longer breed and drain money from decent working people. The government should give out food and clothes tokens anyway, to those people who have no jobs. So as to make sure the money is spent on food for the kids. Not fags, booze and drugs for the so called parents.

Think you might be on the wrong website

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Fair play to the government for at least thinking the unthinkable and actually having the balls to say it cant go on, and by that I mean the whole benefits system. At least in its present form.

Agree its not one of the better ideas and may get dropped altogether *but* at least its bringing back the idea of a welfare state. Those that genuinely need it get help, those that dont wont.

 

[beorhthelm]

if i die penniless, leaving your children money necessarily disadvantages mine. and seeing as neither had any say in their start in life, this is morally wrong.

how are your children disadvantaged by another inheriting? if the money is spent instead does that disadvantage too? but i see what this is, good old envy politics - if you die penniless with nothing to pass on, why should anyone else? theres nothing morally wrong with it unless you believe all wealth creation/ownership is immoral.

 

[portlock seagull]

Well done Cameron for having the courage to do something about our welfare state. Too many taking out, too few putting in as someone said and the gap between the two grows ever wider each year. Anyone who can afford to go to football, the opera etc but then says they can't feed their kids is clearly deranged. Which probably qualifies them for a benefit, which, er, screws my argument...!!

 

[User removed 4]

You're talking as if an inheritance tax would mean ALL of your money going to the state, when the reality is that we're actually talking about redistributing just a percentage of money that you no longer need - to pay for better education, better equiped troups, disability benefit, heating allowances for the elderly, etc.

or has WS has already said, it'll be spent on chavs who've never done a day's work in their f***ing lives, you've spouted plenty of self righteous bollocks on here in the past but this really takes the biscuit.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Double post

 

[simonsimon]

Weaning the middle classes off benefits is going to be a hard road to follow for the CONLIBS

 

[auschr]

im no economist but I remember doing some thing on a website about how much things would have to be cut to start making up all the debt. I cut like 40 programs and only took the debt down a quarter. i cant imagine these changes to child benefit are going to be anymore than a drop in a big big ocean. how about this instead of punishing people who had nothing to do with the economic crisis, why not charge the people responsible, IE banks, then work on fixing 'broken britain'

 

[beorhthelm]

i cant imagine these changes to child benefit are going to be anymore than a drop in a big big ocean. how about this instead of punishing people who had nothing to do with the economic crisis, why not charge the people responsible,

we could, but im not sure Gordan Brown is wealthy enough.

oh, the banks... which ones: those that are owned by the nation (so pay back on re-prviatsation), those that have taken loans (to be paid back), or those that didnt get involved much? and what about the other financial institutions involved, do they get overlooked because they arent "banks"?

btw, the stated child benefit saving is £1Billion, or 2% of the intended deficit reduction.

 

[auschr]

we could, but im not sure Gordan Brown is wealthy enough.

oh, the banks... which ones: those that are owned by the nation (so pay back on re-prviatsation), those that have taken loans (to be paid back), or those that didnt get involved much? and what about the other financial institutions involved, do they get overlooked because they arent "banks"?

btw, the stated child benefit saving is £1Billion, or 2% of the intended deficit reduction.

gordon brown

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Child Benefit changes are going to save £1bn , so why cant the Foreign Aid budget which is running at £9bn a year be un-ringfenced so that its budget can be slashed to save a further £1bn a year ?

 

[portlock seagull]

Because childrens need overseas is generally greater than even the poorest here?

 

[clapham_gull]

I'll pass judgement on how brave there are until they really start chipping away at the vast amount of money that is pissed up the wall by the ministry of defence.

Now that's a scandal.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I'll pass judgement on how brave there are until they really start chipping away at the vast amount of money that is pissed up the wall by the ministry of defence.

Now that's a scandal.

Agreed. I couldn't believe that they still use purchasing rules that are 40 years old. It includes paying towards the office costs of their suppliers as well as pension and redundancy costs for said suppliers. How the hell does that work ? The suppiers should have those costs as part of their standard business cost model not expect their customer ( and therefore us ) to pay directly for them.

That said the front line troops should be protected from any cuts.