Child Benefit Changes

[Nibble]

I can only assume you do not have 3 young kids !

I can only assume you didn't bother to look at the costs involved in bringing up 3 young kids before you had them?

 

[Beach Hut]

And if there was The Tories would get there majority, Labour are a dead duck with Milliband in charge, the tabliods will have him tears.

Correct it would only do Labour a favour and get rid of the current charmless leader.

 

[spacey]

Personally (as a working father of two kids, one age 5 the other 2 and not earning 40k a year) I think this idea is not they way forward.

All families are entitled to the child benefit like anyone else what ever money you earn, this money is for the child not the adults.

So, rather than paying out £x per child, why not provide the child a hot meal, drink and fruit during the day at school with a smaller allowance for the weekend to be fed and clothing, then during school holidays pay out to the family £x to feed the child.

For private schools it’s the same and if the family wants to pay extra for a better meal then they can do.

To me this money is to make sure kids are fed, clothed etc

If a child gets suspended from school or not goes to school then that is his/her and the family loss.

For children under school age then they get the money as before as this is needed for nappies and essentials.

 

[BLOCK F]

How would you have made savings? Unforutnately we've got to the end of where effeciencies can get us. We need to stop paying money out and this seems a good start.

Fair enough, but it does seem unfair that a family with a combined income of way in excess of the 'single earner's higher rate tax band can keep the Child Benefit, provided neither earner is a higher rate payer.Discriminates against mums wanting to stay at home and raise the kids,whilst dad may only just be into the higher rate .
Personally,I would rather have seen Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit combined and means tested as one benefit. Additionally,I would give notice that this benefit would be tapered off after say 3 children.i.e. no more dosh for child number 4,5,6 etc.!
I am aware of the chaotic CTC system,but it has got to be sorted at some stage!

 

[arfer guinness]

Good move as the money in most cases is not used for the children but goes into the general budget for the family. I have always thought that the money should be used to provide free meals at school so that all children of school age would get at least 1 hot meal each day.

How do you propose to feed the children during summer, Easter and Christmas holidays?
Nice to see this government treat people on £44,000 a year the same as bank company chairmen with their multi million pound bonuses!!!

 

[magoo]

Personally (as a working father of two kids, one age 5 the other 2 and not earning 40k a year) I think this idea is not they way forward.

All families are entitled to the child benefit like anyone else what ever money you earn, this money is for the child not the adults.

So, rather than paying out £x per child, why not provide the child a hot meal, drink and fruit during the day at school with a smaller allowance for the weekend to be fed and clothing, then during school holidays pay out to the family £x to feed the child.

For private schools it’s the same and if the family wants to pay extra for a better meal then they can do.

To me this money is to make sure kids are fed, clothed etc

If a child gets suspended from school or not goes to school then that is his/her and the family loss.

For children under school age then they get the money as before as this is needed for nappies and essentials.

Why isn't it the parents responsibility to make sure the child is fed and clothed? Surely you should go into parenthood first discussing if you can afford it? If unfortuntely parents fall on hard times since having children then yes, I'm open to the idea of child benefit.

 

[User removed 4]

And If that property was fine art or a house why the hell should the government be able to effectively force the new owner to sell it to pay a tax bill one something that's already had the tax paid ?

The only reason inheritance tax still exists is that the dead can't vote and people see it as a hit on the rich. Morally it's wrong - I bet if the threshold was lowered to say £100k people would soon be calling for it to be scrapped. It's a tax of envy.

100% correct

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

The only reason inheritance tax still exists is that the dead can't vote and people see it as a hit on the rich. Morally it's wrong - I bet if the threshold was lowered to say £100k people would soon be calling for it to be scrapped. It's a tax of envy.

it's a tax of redistribution. read up on determinism and you'll see that to have no inheritance tax is morally wrong.

but as long as you're okay, i doubt you'll mind.

 

[spacey]

Why isn't it the parents responsibility to make sure the child is fed and clothed? Surely you should go into parenthood first discussing if you can afford it? If unfortuntely parents fall on hard times since having children then yes, I'm open to the idea of child benefit.

Of course its the parents responsibility to make sure the child is fed and clothed, but child benefit means there is no reason why a child is not fed or clothed in this country.

What I am saying is if the government is looking at ways to save money (which is the reason for the current child benefit debate), then reducing the benefit and by providing a five meals a week in schools for kids, means the kids should be eating proper healthy food which is one of the reason for child benefit in the first place.

This could also save the families money (on packed lunches etc) and reduce potential abuse by parents to spend this money towards others things even if it is towards that childs University later in life.

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

it's a tax of redistribution. read up on determinism and you'll see that to have no inheritance tax is morally wrong.

but as long as you're okay, i doubt you'll mind.

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.

That's nice.

 

[vulture]

labour is to blame for all these cuts

 

[withdeanwombat]

Why is there a 'benefit' for simply having a child anyway? If you can't afford to raise a child without state hand outs, don't have a child! This isn't a third world country as much as the Pope insists it is. It's like the government are willing people to breed.

Of course they are willing people to breed.We are an ageing society,and need all the young 'uns we can get to fund us in to the future.

Treble the child benefit,I say!!

 

[Simster]

it's a tax of redistribution. read up on determinism and you'll see that to have no inheritance tax is morally wrong.

but as long as you're okay, i doubt you'll mind.

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.

 

[Robbie G]

But how come if these cuts are a necessity now, will they not happen until 2013?

A very interesting point. Does anyone know why this is, if it's (apparently) so important to reduce the deficit now?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

it's a tax of redistribution. read up on determinism and you'll see that to have no inheritance tax is morally wrong.

but as long as you're okay, i doubt you'll mind.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Simster]

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.

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. The way you're talking, ALL of our tax money goes to chavs fathering multiple kids.

And your kids will still get to keep the remainder. And why should they expect it all? Why should your kids expect a massive financial handout after you've passed away? They didn't earn it, you did. If you feel that strongly about keeping it in the family without paying your taxes, then give it to the kids in dribs and drabs before you get old.

It's not a tax of envy. Personally I suspect I'll end up leaving more than most to my kids. I just think it's morally wrong NOT to tax it.

 

[BLOCK F]

A very interesting point. Does anyone know why this is, if it's (apparently) so important to reduce the deficit now?

IMHO:
1.)Regardless of the country's financial situation,it would be very harsh to cut some families income without notice.Generally,we are given notice of any fiscal changes.
2.) I understand that these changes are part of a cost saving measure to raise money for Ian Duncan-Smith's plans to make work worthwhile and to try and get rid of the poverty trap.Initially,this plan will put welfare costs up,before the hoped for payback.I suppose the conclusion must be that it will be some time before the plan can/will be implemented.In the scheme of things(i.e. the total deficit)£1.0 billion savings is really a drop in the ocean.
3.)We haven't yet heard the full extent of the proposed cuts.Maybe come 20th Oct.we will have a fuller picture including a timescale of all proposals.
4.)Imagine the howls of protest across the country from both the public and M.P.'s of all parties if an immediate cut was made!It would be political madness.
5.)This change is not just about reducing the deficit;besides helping pay for IDS's master plan of making work pay,it is doubtless part of a plan to wean those who are deemed to not really need 'benefits' of this kind,away from them.
Those are my thoughts anyway....what does anybody else think?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

And your kids will still get to keep the remainder. And why should they expect it all? Why should your kids expect a massive financial handout after you've passed away? They didn't earn it, you did. If you feel that strongly about keeping it in the family without paying your taxes, then give it to the kids in dribs and drabs before you get old.

They shouldn't but it should be my choice not the governments to prevent it. It's a tad difficult to pass over bricks and mortar or fine art in dribs and drabs.

 

[Simster]

IMHO:
1.)Regardless of the country's financial situation,it would be very harsh to cut some families income without notice.Generally,we are given notice of any fiscal changes.
2.) I understand that these changes are part of a cost saving measure to raise money for Ian Duncan-Smith's plans to make work worthwhile and to try and get rid of the poverty trap.Initially,this plan will put welfare costs up,before the hoped for payback.I suppose the conclusion must be that it will be some time before the plan can/will be implemented.In the scheme of things(i.e. the total deficit)£1.0 billion savings is really a drop in the ocean.
3.)We haven't yet heard the full extent of the proposed cuts.Maybe come 20th Oct.we will have a fuller picture including a timescale of all proposals.
4.)Imagine the howls of protest across the country from both the public and M.P.'s of all parties if an immediate cut was made!It would be political madness.
5.)This change is not just about reducing the deficit;besides helping pay for IDS's master plan of making work pay,it is doubtless part of a plan to wean those who are deemed to not really need 'benefits' of this kind,away from them.
Those are my thoughts anyway....what does anybody else think?

It's a nice idea, but wouldn't any government like to reduce the benefit bill?

I'm sceptical. IDS isn't prepared to come clean with the money he needs to implement it, nor the total amount saved, so I'm VERY cynical. I bet it all ends in tears with another bungled attempt to implement an ideological plan. It'll be the shittest waste of money since the ID card shambles under Labour.

 

[Simster]

They shouldn't but it should be my choice not the governments to prevent it.

Your argument is very flimsy, IMO. So now you're saying your kids shouldn't inherit all of your hard earned money, yet you don't want the taxman taking his cut. So what would you do with it then?

I thought your argument was that you didn't want it going to chavs? Now it seems to be about choice.

It's a tad difficult to pass over bricks and mortar or fine art in dribs and drabs.

It really isn't as difficult as the current system makes it seem - it's very poorly implemented at the mo.

Instead of being forced to sell property, why not have it valued independently, then allow the benficiary the choice to pay tax on it over x years at base rate interest? A beneficiary could alternatively sell up at their own convenience.