Child Benefit Changes

[e77]

I must confess I am not convinced it is great politics. 'Aspirational Working Class' people are key voters now and this is going to hit some of them.

 

[jakarta]

I'm sorry but I still don't get why having children requires/deserves a state benefit?

Having children is not a circumstance that you cannot help, like disability, or has been forced upon you like redundancy - surely it is a LIFESTYLE choice.

Please explain as someone without children why should I stump up for you having them - surely you should have factored the cost of them before you put your cock in?

 

[clapham_gull]

I'm sorry but I still don't get why having children requires/deserves a state benefit?

Having children is not a circumstance that you cannot help, like disability, or has been forced upon you like redundancy - surely it is a LIFESTYLE choice.

Please explain as someone without children why should I stump up for you having them - surely you should have factored the cost of them before you put your cock in?

They do however apparently deserve if the household income of approx 80K is split between the two parents.

I thinks that's the major sticking point.

 

[jakarta]

They do however apparently deserve if the household income of approx 80K is split between the two parents.

I thinks that's the major sticking point.

Well abolish the whole bloody thing and sort out another route of getting money to those who need it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Well abolish the whole bloody thing and sort out another route of getting money to those who need it.

i think from IDS said that this is the actual longer term goal. the change to tax credit is to soften people up. its a poor presentation of somthing most middle class typical tories actually agree with in principle (i know i have family that have said its stupid they get child credit, be interesting to see how they feel now its here).

im quite surprised this is the bigger story, really the main event today was announcing the cap on benfits to 26k/median earnings. thats a very strong tory winning policy and rather pushed aside by the child credit.

 

[Gwylan]

He is not a fervent supporter of capitalism... To hold him up as some sort of cheerleader for capitalism is not a good example.

This is a bit off-topic but here's what he said to the Guardian yesterday. " "I start from saying we've got capitalism. It is going to stay here, we're not going to socialise it. The question is how to do capitalism in a way which allows people to be authors of their own lives."

and " "Where capitalism has its genius is when it permits the enterprising to borrow from the collective stock of knowledge and add to the national stock of wealth."

Those don't sound to me like the voice of someone out to destroy capitalism. Like I said, his aim is to make it function better. I don't think anyone would deny that the system needs improving, we're all living with the consequences of its inefficiencies right now.

He's certainly not a supporter of laissez-faire capitalism but I didn't say he was. He's not alone in his support for a mixed economy - that's the stance taken by the heads of government of any of the European countries and, indeed, the head of the US government.

I don't agree with all of Hutton's ideas but I do agree with him about inheritance tax. I believe that people should be rewarded for their own efforts and not the efforts of their parents or grand-parents. It's right that parents leave their children something but there's no need to fund them for the rest of their lives.

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

And I didn't say he was out to destroy it. Just to apply heavy controls on it. You were the one who said he was a 'fervent supporter of capitalism'.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't agree with all of Hutton's ideas but I do agree with him about inheritance tax. I believe that people should be rewarded for their own efforts and not the efforts of their parents or grand-parents. It's right that parents leave their children something but there's no need to fund them for the rest of their lives.

ok, its a fair point of view, but why should the state take the cash instead? why should the state be rewarded (often a second time) for those efforts.

 

[mikeyjh]

Just watching the news at the moment and they were discussing the next big idea which is that no-one on benefit should be entitled to more than anyone in any work whatsoever.

Initially I thought, sounds fair enough but then the report widened to Tory councillors in Kensington and Chelsea punching the air with delight because this will mean that poor families will have to move out of central London because they are occupying "prime real estate" that "one" would have to earn £300k to own!! Good riddance shout the horse faced bastards!!

The thing is, this will mean that unemployed families will be forced to move out of many south east towns leaving the area to be repopulated by productive people whilst the plebs can all f*** off to Grimsby or Birkenhead where decent people wont have to worry about their kids having to mix with undesirables...its all sooo f***ed.

Its only just begun too. I get the feeling that Dave and George are loving this defecit as it means they can really stick the boot in to the underclass and claim they are doing it for the benefit of all!!

Anyway. People get the kind of government they deserve I suppose.

I thought I must have misheard when I heard Osbourne declaring exactly this, that people would have to move to 'cheaper' areas. So areas where housing is expensive but wages are not high like, err, Brighton, will be a no-go area for poorer families? Some might think this populist move is marvellous and with get rid of the 'benefit scoungers', but you can't simply sweep a class under the carpet. This is nasty idelologically driven policy to appeal to the tabloids and their readers.

 

[Gwylan]

You were the one who said he was a 'fervent supporter of capitalism'.

Which he quite clearly is.

 

[Gwylan]

I thought I must have misheard when I heard Osbourne declaring exactly this, that people would have to move to 'cheaper' areas. So areas where housing is expensive but wages are not high like, err, Brighton, will be a no-go area for poorer families? Some might think this populist move is marvellous and with get rid of the 'benefit scoungers', but you can't simply sweep a class under the carpet. This is nasty idelologically driven policy to appeal to the tabloids and their readers.

And of course has implications for council funding. If, for example, Grimsby has projected for a population decline of 1% and is then hit by influx of families from the south-east and actually has a population surplus of 5%, that means they have extra school places to fill, more demand for social workers, meals on wheels and care assistants etc. We're not used to massive shifts in demographics in this country so it will be interesting to see how councils cope.

I must say that this is an extreme example. As I see it, the aim is to encourage landlords to reduce their rents - if, for example, landlords are relying on DSS tenants to inhabit their properties and they're told those rents will be capped - they'd either have to cut them or find new tenants (that's not something that's going to be easy). My guess is that it's going to be a mix of people moving away and rents going to be cut but no-one will really know how it's going to work out.

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

I'm sorry but I still don't get why having children requires/deserves a state benefit?

Having children is not a circumstance that you cannot help, like disability, or has been forced upon you like redundancy - surely it is a LIFESTYLE choice.

i'd like to ask anyone on here who was born in the 50's 60's or even the early 70's if their parents could 'afford to have them'. If that was a critea 99% of us wouldn't be here (at least it would have been easier to get a West Ham ticket)

 

[mikeyjh]

I must say that this is an extreme example. As I see it, the aim is to encourage landlords to reduce their rents - if, for example, landlords are relying on DSS tenants to inhabit their properties and they're told those rents will be capped - they'd either have to cut them or find new tenants (that's not something that's going to be easy). My guess is that it's going to be a mix of people moving away and rents going to be cut but no-one will really know how it's going to work out.

I'm not sure I agree with the why, but the outcome - Yes. Using Brighton as an example though, there is huge demand for private rental and given the ratio of house price to salary is not going to go away. To me, this means that those unfortunate enough to be out of work (even for a short period) will be either a) Forced out of the city altogether or b) Marginalised in to the less solubrious areas.

 

[Gwylan]

I'm not sure I agree with the why ...

That is just my interpretation but I could be wrong. I think that the Tories just want to abolish the idea that people are better off on benefits than working (an aim that I wholeheartedly agree with) but haven't really thought out all the implications as to what that will mean.

In Brighton, for example, non-DSS tenants will almost certainly mean more students but Brighton council's policy is to look at keeping more students from residential areas (hence the new student buildings at Falmer and the planned development at Varley Halls). So, there's a clash looming there.

 

[Scampi]

I'm sorry but I still don't get why having children requires/deserves a state benefit?

Having children is not a circumstance that you cannot help, like disability, or has been forced upon you like redundancy - surely it is a LIFESTYLE choice.

Please explain as someone without children why should I stump up for you having them - surely you should have factored the cost of them before you put your cock in?

Because they're going to look after you in your old age.

 

[drew]

ok, its a fair point of view, but why should the state take the cash instead? why should the state be rewarded (often a second time) for those efforts.

You make it sound like the state is some third party that is living the high life. The money goes into the state pot that pays for everything the chosen government of the day decides to spend it on, defence, health, education etc. Personally, I think there are many misguided comments about IHT. First, the threshold over which you start paying is £325,000 and for a married couple this is doubled to £750,000 irrespective of whether they die at the same time. How many 'estates' are there in the country that exceed this amount?

 

[tedebear]

Yes you are. The rule for child benefit is:

Do you have a child?

If you answer 'yes' you qualify for child benefit.

(You might know it as 'family allowance')

No so Bozza, I do not get any benefits, I might qualify but I am not entitled to receive them. Its stamped in great big letters all over my passport.

 

[Bozza]

No so Bozza, I do not get any benefits, I might qualify but I am not entitled to receive them. Its stamped in great big letters all over my passport.

So, your husband/significant other does not claim (or is not entitled to claim) child benefit for your child?

 

[BLOCK F]

I'm sorry but I still don't get why having children requires/deserves a state benefit?

Having children is not a circumstance that you cannot help, like disability, or has been forced upon you like redundancy - surely it is a LIFESTYLE choice.

Please explain as someone without children why should I stump up for you having them - surely you should have factored the cost of them before you put your cock in?

I understand where you are coming from,but for quite some time now, successive Governments have recognised that raising children is an expensive business and it has been deemed the mark of a civilised society to help with the cost of bringing up those children,who are,after all the future of this country.
We all have gripes about what some of the taxes we pay go towards,but I would suggest that helping families with the cost of raising kids isn't the worst way to spend our our 'hard earned'.
On the point of 'lifstyle' choices(God I hate that expression!),what about the chap who chooses to play football and breaks his leg....do you object to helping pay for his treatment 'cos he made a 'lifestyle' choice to indulge in a contact sport?Not the best example perhaps,but you get my drift.

 

[drew]

You make it sound like the state is some third party that is living the high life. The money goes into the state pot that pays for everything the chosen government of the day decides to spend it on, defence, health, education etc. Personally, I think there are many misguided comments about IHT. First, the threshold over which you start paying is £325,000 and for a married couple this is doubled to £750,000 irrespective of whether they die at the same time. How many 'estates' are there in the country that exceed this amount?

Correction - the combined estate threshold is £650k. Must brush up on my maths.