Child Benefit
nick205 - 4/10/10 at 12:20 PM
Heard the news...?
Anyone on the higher rate tax band will lose child benefit payments!
It works like this...
1 parent working and earning just over the limit and 1 parent not working (£44k income = NO child benefit
Both parents working and both earning just under the limit (£88k income) = FULL child benefit
That's us kicked in the nuts BIG time AGAIN.
We have 3 kids, the 2nd and 3rd being twins so not what we'd planned. That means we're set to lose £2,400 a year household income
Listening to Ian Duncan-Smith on Radio 4 laying it on thick as you like about how hard it is to make these decisions and how the government were left
with the Labour legacy. I just wonder what state we'd be in now if the Cons had been in power for the last decade - I'd bet a testicle or
two it would be no better than it is now
ETA:
Listening further, they're now saying, IF they do it, it may not come into effect until after the next election.
That begs several questions...
1. How do they know they'll still be in power?
2. Do they think that level of cut will still be necessary in 4-5 years time?
3. Are they saying the economy will not have recovered sufficiently over that period?
4. If it's scaremongering, what REAL and immediate cuts are they planning and not telling us about?
[Edited on 4/10/10 by nick205]
Benzine - 4/10/10 at 12:41 PM
Seems weird that the 88k income gets full child benefit. IMO they shouldn't get child benefit, nor should 44k earners. 44k is a LOT
of money
Edited to add bold for emphasis
[Edited on 4/10/10 by Benzine]
YQUSTA - 4/10/10 at 12:42 PM
I agree that the way it is worked out is very unfair.
What I don't understand is why there is a child benefit in the first place. Apart from those on the dole???
thunderace - 4/10/10 at 12:43 PM
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
speedyxjs - 4/10/10 at 12:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Benzine
Seems weird that the 88k income gets full child benefit. IMO they shouldn't get child benefit, nor should 44k earners. 44k is a LOT
of money
Too right!
Madinventions - 4/10/10 at 12:48 PM
I agree... kids cost money - no real suprise there. If you can't afford them, then you don't have to have them! It's not compulsory.
If you do decide to breed, then why should the taxpayer reward you for it?!
It's about time that the culture of expecting payouts for everything was discouraged as vigorously as possible - probably starting with
'personal injury specialists'.
Alfa145 - 4/10/10 at 12:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
Agreed
44k is alot of money and surely people aren't stupid enough to budget for kids on the basis of what benefits they get?
balidey - 4/10/10 at 12:59 PM
yeah Thanks guys. I needed a bit of extra cash so decided to have kids. Keep the hand outs coming*
*yes, tongue is very firmly in cheek. Do you actually think that people have kids to get money? OK, lets say the MAJORITY of people. You have to
exclude the state spongers who get handouts for everything. But really the child benefits are not much. But it does help. And then to have it reduced
or taken away is like us being taxed again. Surely thats even more unfair?
Guinness - 4/10/10 at 01:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Madinventions
I agree... kids cost money - no real suprise there. If you can't afford them, then you don't have to have them! It's not compulsory.
If you do decide to breed, then why should the taxpayer reward you for it?!
It's about time that the culture of expecting payouts for everything was discouraged as vigorously as possible - probably starting with
'personal injury specialists'.
Interesting debate.
But what happens if you take a sensible and detailled look at your income, your partners income (and what happens when they go on maternity leave / go
back to work) and you include the tax breaks and benefits that the govt provide at the time (Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit). Taking all that
into account you decide to have a child.
Then the govt moves the goal posts. Can I hand the child back? Obviously not, but child benefit can make a massive difference (see Nick's
example).
nick205 - 4/10/10 at 01:08 PM
First up, I don't "expect" anyone to "pay" for my kids. You could however argue that taxpayers money spent on children and
in particular their education (should) provide a universal benefit to the country and and it's economy. The ageing demographic, of which
we're all a part, will need supporting by the following generations - let's hope we equip and enable them to do so!
Second, I/we did budget carefully and with surplus for kids - 2 kids to be precise - we ended up with 3. Again no one else's fault and hey life
could throw an awful lot worse at you (brother and sister in law lost a child )
Thirdly, I'm not saying it's "right" that those over the higher tax band should receive child benefit. The fact is the benefit
exists and is claimed - if you take it away people will notice and complain.
Finally, and the main point I was making, is the disparity in the way it will apply to households with substantially different incomes. IMO if the
benefit is to exist at all it should be based on household income and not that of the individual parents. If the net result was no child benefit for
our household then so be it - at least it would fall fairly on us!
speed8 - 4/10/10 at 01:17 PM
I'm of the 'there shouldn't be child benefit' camp.
If there has to be child benefit it should be capped at one child and for the needy only.
I don't class the serial benefits scroungers as needy, the only thing they are needy of is a good kick up the ar5e.
balidey - 4/10/10 at 01:21 PM
Tax isn't fair.
I pay towards the NHS, do I complain that I'm not ill?
I pay my road tax. Yet my road has terrible pot-holes.
So therefore people without kids should help contribute to the upkeep of mine. And they are needy little buggers. They want a PS3 and a new slim Xbox
360, these things aint cheap. 
Seriously though, I often think the people in middle income, like myself, often have it tougher. People with a high salary should be able to afford
more. People on lower salary, or people on benefits are entitled to more hand outs. Yet me, earning just enough gets virtually bugger all help
financially. And we are often the ones hardest hit when the tax benefits are cut.
scudderfish - 4/10/10 at 01:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
Because those kids are going to be paying the taxes that pay for your social security when you've stopped working.
dan8400 - 4/10/10 at 01:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
I totally agree. If you CHOOSE to have kids you should be able to AFFORD to have kids.
And, as mentioned, 44k is ALOT of money.
Dan
balidey - 4/10/10 at 01:27 PM
Lets look at the reason FOR having child benefits....
Most people in the UK have children.
Government wants to buy your votes.
ergo, give people with kids some 'help'.
When really, we are all inteligent enough to know that if child benefit (or any tax come to think of it) was increased by £x amount per year then the
government would add £x per year to another tax somewhere to pay for it.
The people without kids, don't get hung up on this and feel hard done by. You are not missing out on free hand outs. Its all just smoke and
mirrors stuff. And regardless of what party is in power, the 5h1t is still the same, its just the level that changes
balidey - 4/10/10 at 01:28 PM
In the words of Homer Simpson.... Nobody 'chooses' to have kids.
Surrey Dave - 4/10/10 at 01:29 PM
I don't understand why anyone other than GENUINELY poor people ever got child benefit................
All this stuff encourages people to have little or no responsibility, " oh it's alright i'll just have and do what I like someone will
pickup the tab"
44K I'd thought I'd died and gone to heaven!
[Edited on 4/10/10 by Surrey Dave]
balidey - 4/10/10 at 01:36 PM
The level is immaterial. We all live upto and beyond our means.
I now earn about 3 times what I did when I started working. Am I minted? NO. Do I depend on my (very little) child benefit? NO. Does it help? YES.
Does it feel like a kick in the nads if its taken away, or reduced year on year? YES. Did I plan or budget having kids? NO. Does anyone?
OK, lets lower the limit from 44k to a more 'average working income' of say 21k. What have we actually done? Just infuriated more people but
the argument still stands. You can still afford kids if you earn 22K. or 19K, or 16K. You will still get the people on 15k moaning that they know
someone who earns 25K, why are they gettting benefits etc etc yawn yawn.
whitestu - 4/10/10 at 01:45 PM
I'm in the same position as Nick205 and agree it seems unfair. We have given up a lot of income by my wife deciding to stay at home and look
after the kids. There is no transferrable tax allowance so we miss out there and now we are penalised again
quote:
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
If you want opt out of society and agree to not take anything from the state when you can no longer work I'm sure my kids will be pleased as it
will be one less old person for their taxes to support!
[Edited on 4/10/10 by whitestu]
r1_pete - 4/10/10 at 01:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
Because those kids are going to be paying the taxes that pay for your social security when you've stopped working.
No they will be paying for the next 2 generations of benefit scroungers, I've 15 years to go to retire and cant see me getting a state
pension!!
As for child benefit, it should be means tested IMO, fair across the board.
scootz - 4/10/10 at 02:28 PM
The rules surrounding who gets it and who doesn't is indeed grossly unfair, however... it shouldn't exist in the first place!
craig1410 - 4/10/10 at 02:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
What a blinkered view. You do realise it will be "everyone's" kids who pay taxes to keep you when you get old and your savings have run
out? Oh, and I hate to break it to you but you pay a darn sight more to educate our kids than on child benefit! 
Yes, there are those who have kids through ignorance or to sponge off the state but they are a tiny minority. There is also the small matter of
keeping the population going, possibly the best answer to the old question, "what is the meaning of life?" By some simple arithmetic, each
person has to have on average at least one child to keep population static. This means that each "couple" has to have at least 2 kids and
then to take account of accidents, illness and infertility then some will need to have either more kids with the same mate or more than one mate.
As for child benefit, I currently have 3 kids aged 16, 14 and 11 and get CB for all three. I am (only just) a higher rate tax payer and my wife is a
primary school teacher. We get something like £2500pa at the moment although that would be coming down a bit by the time the CB cut comes into effect
due to our eldest being 19 years old. This still means that we will be set to lose £1750 or so per annum which is not insignificant. Even so, given
the state Labour has left our country in, I believe it is the correct decision but only if other parts of society get hit proportionally equally. I
believe this will happen and when it does, those people above or below the "middle classes" hit by this cut, will have no cause for
complaint.
Kids are expensive and a £1750pa cut is painful regardless of income level. My wife and I aren't rich. We have a 75% LTV mortgage, a 55 reg SEAT
Altea, an 08 reg Toyota Aygo, no savings and plenty of debt. We go to eurocamp for holidays and don't have a lavish lifestyle. Most of this is a
result of having kids at an early age but, you know, I wouldn't change a thing because having kids is well worth it!
Does anyone else think it is hypocritical the way that the majority of people expect cuts but then freak out when something of value to them is cut?
balidey - 4/10/10 at 02:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
I wouldn't change a thing because having kids is well worth it!
THAT is the bottom line. Well said. Sod the tax arguments. Its worth it. Infact its almost worth having sex for
craig1410 - 4/10/10 at 03:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by balidey
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
I wouldn't change a thing because having kids is well worth it!
THAT is the bottom line. Well said. Sod the tax arguments. Its worth it. Infact its almost worth having sex for
Well said!
One thing I didn't mention earlier is the fact that, if we bring kids into the world and educate them well in a stable family environment then
there is an excellent chance that they will grow up to be happy, healthy, law abiding citizens (aka Tax Payers) who will bring with them a net income
over their lifetime. This means that they themselves pay back any benefits they may have received as a child.
Does anyone know if there are any figures which track the average "income" per child born in the UK? It is probably just Per Capita Income
which is $36000 per annum for the UK.
[Edited on 4/10/2010 by craig1410]
Fozzie - 4/10/10 at 03:12 PM
Child benefit was introduced just after WW2 where upon it was deemed that bringing up of several children was to be encouraged to restore the birth
rate.
From what my parents have said, it wasn't ever intended to be a long/forever thing.
44k is a lot of money!!! Yes, on the face of it, it does seem unfair as to whether there is 1 or 2 parents earning the amount........but the only
alternative appears to be a long winded means test form.
It has amazed me for many years that it has been 'a given' to everyone regardless of their wealth or, indeed lack of it.
The limit is way overdue, but sadly is not a vote winner amongst some when an election is due.
All above IMHO of course!
Fozzie .......
Mum of 3 .... Step Mum of 1 ..... = 4
scootz - 4/10/10 at 03:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fozzie
Fozzie .......
Mum of 3 .... Step Mum of 1 ..... = 4
... and nanny for a further 8,697 kids.
= 8,701
nick205 - 4/10/10 at 03:27 PM
Fancy one more Fozzie?
You could be my mum any day
coozer - 4/10/10 at 03:36 PM
Sorry, but IMO anyone earning in the top tax bracket is just being greedy.
Fozzie - 4/10/10 at 03:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by Fozzie
Fozzie .......
Mum of 3 .... Step Mum of 1 ..... = 4
... and nanny for a further 8,697 kids.
= 8,701
Good job I love kids then isn't it?
Fozzie
Nick you are included within the 8,697
whitestu - 4/10/10 at 03:40 PM
quote:
Sorry, but IMO anyone earning in the top tax bracket is just being greedy.
Why? With a £44k income you would be lucky to get a mortgage on a 1 bed flat in London. Does't make you rich in my book!
Nick Skidmore - 4/10/10 at 03:56 PM
Unfortunately I think that giving CB to every child (who's income is effectively nil in 99.9% of cases) has historically been cheaper than means
testing it.
Any cut in CB therefore either has to be across the board (unfair to low incomes) or very easy to administer if targeted. Therefore just stopping
giving it to higher rate tax payers because they are already on a list is easy, crude, cheap and is a net saving.
Absolutely nothing to do with fairness or being correct.
To the folk with no children, I can sympathise I didn't have my daughter til relatively late in life and shared those views prior to that. What I
would say in response is that Tax is the way of us all paying in to a socially responsible society where the costs are borne in relation to ones
ability to pay. Parenting IF DONE PROPERLY is hard work and results in decent members of society who work and pay tax to keep childless folk in
nursing homes when they are too old to clean themselves up when they end up incontinent. Just think a bit further into the future......
40inches - 4/10/10 at 04:04 PM
Give me £44k a year and you can have my CB, Hell! you can have the kids!
steve m - 4/10/10 at 04:09 PM
OMG Fozzie, your a bird !!!!!
(starts up whole new discussion/hijack thread)
I, a bit like Fozzie have one mine, and one step child, although they are 28 and 34, they are still children ??
And certainly when my 2 were "children" the child benifits were a lot less than now, but all they did was help the situation, the actual
financial cost of having a child is considrably more than the child benifit paid to us
Strontium Dog - 4/10/10 at 04:28 PM
We live in a grossly overpopulated country. Why would we want to do anything except discourage people from having more kids? (Unexpected twins etc.
aside of course 
).
And yes I do have 1 child and I receive no help what so ever but I have her here exactly half the time with all the costs entailed as I co-parent!
craig1410 - 4/10/10 at 04:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 40inches
Give me £44k a year and you can have my CB, Hell! you can have the kids!
There is more to life than money mate. I know I've been dealt a decent hand in life as I am from a happy home and my Mum and Dad worked hard to
allow me to go to University and get some education but it's been far from easy along the way.
I studied electronics and got my degree in 1995, a year after my first daughter was born. At the time she was born I was working as a student trainee
between university year 3 and 4 at IBM. I was only earning £10k at the time but we got by. My wife did part time work in the evenings to help out
having had to cut her career plans short as a result of our daughter coming along unexpectedly... Since we had one child we decided we might as well
complete the set so had another 2 over the next 4 years during which time my wife used open university to get her HND and eventually her degree in
business admin. She then did a post grad course to qualify as a teacher (very tough course by the way). During all that time the child benefit was
highly valuable to help us make ends meet as I was still earning less than £25k in 1998 supporting 3 kids (our choice I know) and she was only doing
part time work as she was a full time Mum.
It's only really since 2004 that my wife has been able to work full time as the kids were all off to school and she has worked very hard to get
to where she is now. The early years left us with a lot of debts which we are still working to clear and I expect it will be a few more years before
we are "comfortable" financially.
What many people don't understand when they think about how unfair it is for higher rate tax payers to get child benefit is the journey that it
took to get there and the "scars" that are left both emotionally and financially. It is not an easy journey but if forms the backbone of our
society and the future of it. We should also not be angry at those who claim what they are entitled to, we should be angry (if anger is in fact
justified) at the governments who have not had the courage to make unpopular decisions in the national interest in the past. For that reason George
Osborne and the conservatives should be congratulated. For those not affected by this cut, rest assured that the time will come in the next few years
when something will be cut that affects you. I hope you will remember this day when that day comes because none of us will escape a certain amount of
pain.
quote:
Originally posted by Strontium Dog
We live in a grossly overpopulated country. Why would we want to do anything except discourage people from having more kids? (Unexpected twins etc.
aside of course ).
Because then you end up with an ageing population without enough income tax to pay for care of the elderly. Or are you proposing we cull the elderly
off to lessen the burden?
The country is not over populated but then again I live in Scotland!
Sermon over, I hope you enjoyed it...
[Edited on 4/10/2010 by craig1410]
McLannahan - 4/10/10 at 05:17 PM
We've just started to receive CB and although we stuggle at the moment financially it does help with the monthly costs.
If I were to lose it (not that I earn anywhere near the 44k, far less!) I do think we'd just re-adjust. My mother bought up 4 children on much
less money and I know we'd cope. £80 a month is a nice luxury but there's many many people far less well off than my wife and self.
Fozzie - 4/10/10 at 05:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by McLannahan
...........£80 a month is a nice luxury but there's many many people far less well off than my wife and self.
I am pretty sure that those earning under 44K will not be affected ....... and I 'think' it wont come into effect until 2013?
Jubal - 4/10/10 at 05:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
Rubbish. The same argument holds true for any service you don't avail yourself thereof. Why should I pay for deaf, disabled, old, infirm, ill,
special needs, lesbian, nuclear bombs etc etc etc?
Society has a duty to protect those vulnerable within it. A basic standard of education (which was available to you at no charge) is a key way for the
society to demonstrate equality for all to try and mitigate against the multitude of inequalities elsewhere within it.
If you knew me you would know I'm no socialist but I'm not happy when people who have had all the advantages of our system made available to
them somehow think they don't have to pay their way. And where does it stop with your flawed logic? If I send my kids to private school and use
private health should I get a rebate on my tax? Nope, because that just widens the gap.
Peteff - 4/10/10 at 06:03 PM
[quote=jubal]If you knew me you would know I'm no socialist
You probably don't realise how much of a Socialist you are jubal but it's not a bad thing to be if those are the principles you hold to. My
widowed mother got family allowance for me and my three sisters and your parents most likely received it for you thunderface. How much of your tax
contribution goes towards things you don't like? We'd all pay none if we had the option.
l0rd - 4/10/10 at 06:22 PM
A lot of b0l0cks and if anyone is offended, report me.
I am not British. I came here to do my studies and i am still here. I have been paying the frkn taxes and NI both me and my wife.
Both me and my wife had good jobs earning about 50K a year so imagine how much taxed we pay and NI.
My wife got preagnant. She had a problem. NHS wouldn't scan because it was 2 weeks ahead of scedule. Wife get to hospital after 2 weeks of
bleeding. Got her scan and was rushed for surgery.
Everything stinks. TAX, NI etc.... Where do all these come from? The goverment.
I have never claimed a dime on benefits. I have paid so much that really iritates me when i see my frkn learners getting so much support to go to
college and within 3 weeks they get preagnant.
Hence, me giving my notice and going back home. It's nice to reward people who try to be better. Not people who try to get an easy ride.
Stott - 4/10/10 at 06:32 PM
I thought it was going to be stopped over 44k joint income? so regardless of who is earning, single parent/one not earning, both on 23K, if you breach
44K joint P/A it's gonna get stopped for you.
I hope it's 44K each but I can't see it myself.
thunderace - 4/10/10 at 06:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jubal
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
Rubbish. The same argument holds true for any service you don't avail yourself thereof. Why should I pay for deaf, disabled, old, infirm, ill,
special needs, lesbian, nuclear bombs etc etc etc?
Society has a duty to protect those vulnerable within it. A basic standard of education (which was available to you at no charge) is a key way for the
society to demonstrate equality for all to try and mitigate against the multitude of inequalities elsewhere within it.
If you knew me you would know I'm no socialist but I'm not happy when people who have had all the advantages of our system made available to
them somehow think they don't have to pay their way. And where does it stop with your flawed logic? If I send my kids to private school and use
private health should I get a rebate on my tax? Nope, because that just widens the gap.
having children is somthing you choose unlike what you say about deaf, disabled, old, infirm, ill, special needs, lesbian, nuclear bombs etc etc
etc?
if you have kids you should fund them yourself is what im saying !!!
its no ones elses job to pay for them ever.
McLannahan - 4/10/10 at 06:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Stott
I thought it was going to be stopped over 44k joint income? so regardless of who is earning, single parent/one not earning, both on 23K, if you breach
44K joint P/A it's gonna get stopped for you.
I hope it's 44K each but I can't see it myself.
About 1/2 way down - joint at say 43k each would still receive the benefit?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
mangogrooveworkshop - 4/10/10 at 06:50 PM
l0rd - 4/10/10 at 06:56 PM
I am 31. I have no children. Did try last year as i finally reached a stage that me and my wife could afford one.
2 learners of mine. The goverment wouldn't pay them any money as they turned 19. 2 weeks l8r both preagnant.
Do they play the system?
Ohhh yes
Strontium Dog - 4/10/10 at 06:56 PM
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Strontium Dog
We live in a grossly overpopulated country. Why would we want to do anything except discourage people from having more kids? (Unexpected twins etc.
aside of course ).
Because then you end up with an ageing population without enough income tax to pay for care of the elderly. Or are you proposing we cull the elderly
off to lessen the burden?
The country is not over populated but then again I live in Scotland!
Sermon over, I hope you enjoyed it...
[Edited on 4/10/2010 by craig1410]
Well that's a load of crap isn't it. The pension fund has already gone and it looks like I'll be working till I can't weald a
spanner any more. Oh yes, and I already look after an elderly relative so that she does not face the horror that is an old peoples home. We should
look after our own instead of shoving them into homes, out of sight and mind, and then the state could take up the slack where needed!
And if you think 60.000,000 in a country this size isn't overpopulated you need to pull the wool down!
But maybe your right and we should all have lots more children and bring them up on state handouts! That way there'll be loads of money to
support me in my retirement! Oh wait, that's not how it works is it, I'll just have to stump up more cash to raise your kids as well as my
own! Doh!
EDIT
The benefit system should be there for those that can't get by without it and then it should be enough to make life more than an existence for
those that need it. NOT for people who fancy 4 kids because they like having them and no worries because the state will pick up the bill!
[Edited on 4/10/10 by Strontium Dog]
[Edited on 4/10/10 by Strontium Dog]
Jubal - 4/10/10 at 06:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
having children is somthing you choose unlike what you say about deaf, disabled, old, infirm, ill, special needs, lesbian, nuclear bombs etc etc
etc?
if you have kids you should fund them yourself is what im saying !!!
its no ones elses job to pay for them ever.
You didn't go to school then? I think you are missing the point. Every situation has its exceptions.
gingerprince - 4/10/10 at 07:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fozzie
44k is a lot of money!!! Yes, on the face of it, it does seem unfair as to whether there is 1 or 2 parents earning the amount........but the only
alternative appears to be a long winded means test form.
44k is a lot of money, but losing the benefit is the equivalent to an over 2% pay cut. For people stretching for a mortgage (which these days
you're lucky if you don't!) that can make a difference.
Why don't they combine it as part of the child tax credit system, which is already means tested based on household income?
We get child benefit for our son, and technically we would also qualify for /some/ tax credit. But, I don't claim that because my income is
quite variable with overtime etc, so I could easily end up having to pay it back so it's not worth the hassle for us.
It won't kill us to lose 80 quid a month, I'm fortunate that my mortgage isn't stretching (though I want a bigger house!), but it is a
p1ss poor thought-out idea the way they're doing it!
Madinventions - 4/10/10 at 07:32 PM
I think the culture of expecting handouts needs to be erradicated somehow, and that very limited benefits should only be available for short-term aid
for those who really need them, and only if they can prove that this is the case. It seems to me that benefits are treated as a given right by many
these days, and that needs to change.
craig1410 - 4/10/10 at 07:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Strontium Dog
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Strontium Dog
We live in a grossly overpopulated country. Why would we want to do anything except discourage people from having more kids? (Unexpected twins etc.
aside of course ).
Because then you end up with an ageing population without enough income tax to pay for care of the elderly. Or are you proposing we cull the elderly
off to lessen the burden?
The country is not over populated but then again I live in Scotland!
Sermon over, I hope you enjoyed it...
[Edited on 4/10/2010 by craig1410]
Well that's a load of crap isn't it. The pension fund has already gone and it looks like I'll be working till I can't weald a
spanner any more. Oh yes, and I already look after an elderly relative so that she does not face the horror that is an old peoples home. We should
look after our own instead of shoving them into homes, out of sight and mind, and then the state could take up the slack where needed!
And if you think 60.000,000 in a country this size isn't overpopulated you need to pull the wool down!
But maybe your right and we should all have lots more children and bring them up on state handouts! That way there'll be loads of money to
support me in my retirement! Oh wait, that's not how it works is it, I'll just have to stump up more cash to raise your kids as well as my
own! Doh!
EDIT
The benefit system should be there for those that can't get by without it and then it should be enough to make life more than an existence for
those that need it. NOT for people who fancy 4 kids because they like having them and no worries because the state will pick up the bill!
[Edited on 4/10/10 by Strontium Dog]
[Edited on 4/10/10 by Strontium Dog]
I think you've taken something the wrong way here, the last thing I am advocating is that we all have lots of kids and sponge off the state! I
think you need to calm down and read my post again. What I am saying is that kids, brought up in stable families and well educated, will prove to be a
sound investment because they will be the workers and entrepreneurs of the future. This is what (normally) gives our economy growth and is reflected
in the GDP per capita I mentioned earlier. Look at it another way, we all work for UK PLC.
Yes, we should look after our own but some people don't have anyone to directly look after them which is where the welfare state (hopefully)
steps in to provide carers and winter fuel allowance and other benefits to the vulnerable. Ironically it is often those who chose not to have kids or
couldn't have kids that benefit most from this safety net. I should also point out that not all old people's homes are
"horrors".
As for overpopulation, my country (Scotland) has a population density 6 times lower than England and most of the English population lives in the south
east. The obvious solution is to move north and west. By the way, if you read my earlier post, I was talking about keeping the population static, not
increasing or decreasing.
As for you stumping up cash to support my kids, I doubt that will be necessary due to the amount of tax that my wife and I pay each month and the
future tax which our kids are likely to be paying to keep you and I in our old age. Have a look at this little article by the BBC if you don't
believe me: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm
It shows that the top 50% of earners pay 88.4% of all income tax collected and the bottom 50% of earners only pay 11.6% of all income tax.
Anyway, you've got me completely wrong if you think I am encouraging spongers although I do think that people should be encouraged to work for a
few more years past 65 if they can as it is better for both the finances and the health of those concerned. Too many people hit pension age, retire
and then just wither away. Better to keep working in some sort of capacity.
All IMHO of course.
Craig.
JoelP - 4/10/10 at 07:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Strontium Dog
NOT for people who fancy 4 kids because they like having them and no worries because the state will pick up the bill!
Seriously though, you think £13 a week covers having a child? You wouldnt get the nappies for that, nevermind the food and clothes. Its the overall
benefit system that makes single teen motherhood an option, not child benefit alone.
I do think though that child benefit should only be for the first and maybe second child, and only once you have passed the parenting license.
I believe that child benefit stems from the belief that having a child is a human right, and that having no money shouldnt make you miss out on the
best experience a human can have (and i do mean children, not sex!). I dont think that you need the extra £20 a week if you earn 44k, and certainly
not if you both get it. Thats just outrageous in fact, to earn 80k a year and still accept handouts. If you have that kind of income you should be
giving to local charities, not taking.
The overall cap on benefits is a good move too.
Strontium Dog - 4/10/10 at 09:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
quote:
Originally posted by Strontium Dog
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Strontium Dog
We live in a grossly overpopulated country. Why would we want to do anything except discourage people from having more kids? (Unexpected twins etc.
aside of course ).
Because then you end up with an ageing population without enough income tax to pay for care of the elderly. Or are you proposing we cull the elderly
off to lessen the burden?
The country is not over populated but then again I live in Scotland!
Sermon over, I hope you enjoyed it...
[Edited on 4/10/2010 by craig1410]
Well that's a load of crap isn't it. The pension fund has already gone and it looks like I'll be working till I can't weald a
spanner any more. Oh yes, and I already look after an elderly relative so that she does not face the horror that is an old peoples home. We should
look after our own instead of shoving them into homes, out of sight and mind, and then the state could take up the slack where needed!
And if you think 60.000,000 in a country this size isn't overpopulated you need to pull the wool down!
But maybe your right and we should all have lots more children and bring them up on state handouts! That way there'll be loads of money to
support me in my retirement! Oh wait, that's not how it works is it, I'll just have to stump up more cash to raise your kids as well as my
own! Doh!
EDIT
The benefit system should be there for those that can't get by without it and then it should be enough to make life more than an existence for
those that need it. NOT for people who fancy 4 kids because they like having them and no worries because the state will pick up the bill!
[Edited on 4/10/10 by Strontium Dog]
[Edited on 4/10/10 by Strontium Dog]
I think you've taken something the wrong way here, the last thing I am advocating is that we all have lots of kids and sponge off the state! I
think you need to calm down and read my post again. What I am saying is that kids, brought up in stable families and well educated, will prove to be a
sound investment because they will be the workers and entrepreneurs of the future. This is what (normally) gives our economy growth and is reflected
in the GDP per capita I mentioned earlier. Look at it another way, we all work for UK PLC.
Yes, we should look after our own but some people don't have anyone to directly look after them which is where the welfare state (hopefully)
steps in to provide carers and winter fuel allowance and other benefits to the vulnerable. Ironically it is often those who chose not to have kids or
couldn't have kids that benefit most from this safety net. I should also point out that not all old people's homes are
"horrors".
As for overpopulation, my country (Scotland) has a population density 6 times lower than England and most of the English population lives in the south
east. The obvious solution is to move north and west. By the way, if you read my earlier post, I was talking about keeping the population static, not
increasing or decreasing.
As for you stumping up cash to support my kids, I doubt that will be necessary due to the amount of tax that my wife and I pay each month and the
future tax which our kids are likely to be paying to keep you and I in our old age. Have a look at this little article by the BBC if you don't
believe me: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm
It shows that the top 50% of earners pay 88.4% of all income tax collected and the bottom 50% of earners only pay 11.6% of all income tax.
Anyway, you've got me completely wrong if you think I am encouraging spongers although I do think that people should be encouraged to work for a
few more years past 65 if they can as it is better for both the finances and the health of those concerned. Too many people hit pension age, retire
and then just wither away. Better to keep working in some sort of capacity.
All IMHO of course.
Craig.
I don't think I took anything the wrong way at all. It was you that accused me of wanting to cull the elderly which is a crock to say the least.
Read my post. And as to your kids paying for me in my old age, well we'll see won't we. I certainly don't expect to ever be able to
stop working even if your kids are highly successful and are lucky enough to earn lots of money. This country, and I include Scotland in that even if
you don't like it, is full of fatherless children with no morals or ethics or desire to work largely due to the way a single mother can get
money, flat and everything else she needs just by having kids.
As it goes, I could use a little help myself but don't get much. I full time care for someone and then I have a daughter with a congenital heart
condition too. She is nearly 10 and has had 2 open heart surgeries so far and more to come. I don't get any help at all. I get a carers
allowance, about £90 a week and I work as much as I can to fill in the big hole this leaves but can only do so much. If I was a single mother I'd
get lots of help, I wonder why we have the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe?!
I think it is fair to say that if you and your wife are paying enough tax to cover the education of your children after a fair amount is deducted for
NHS, policing etc. then you are truly blessed with good fortune. I may have to move to Scotland, got any jobs going?
nitram38 - 4/10/10 at 09:21 PM
All I know is we pay more and more tax and get less and less back.
MP's worked their expenses "within the rules" yet the hard up are gonna get shafted again.
chrisxr2 - 4/10/10 at 09:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Benzine
Seems weird that the 88k income gets full child benefit. IMO they shouldn't get child benefit, nor should 44k earners. 44k is a LOT
of money
Maybe so but i work bloody hard for my money, why should all my taxes pay for single mums to be on a guaranteed 15 grand a year, why should i pay for
child tax credits for people that cant be bothered to earn enough to get by on.???
SteveWalker - 4/10/10 at 09:44 PM
It is unfair that a couple earning 43,000 each will still get it, but a couple on one salary of 45,000 will not. If they wanted to make it fair, while
not having a heavy burden of means testing, they could have simply said anyone on higher rate tax would lose the child benefit, unless they filled in
a means test form. This would mean that standard rate taxpayers would not have to fill in forms, the extremely well off would not have to as they
wouldn't be entitled anyway and only the smaller number in the middle would need to do so.
MakeEverything - 4/10/10 at 09:58 PM
Lets start a revolution and overthrow the government? - Or is that a hanging offence?
craig1410 - 4/10/10 at 10:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Strontium Dog
I don't think I took anything the wrong way at all. It was you that accused me of wanting to cull the elderly which is a crock to say the least.
Read my post. And as to your kids paying for me in my old age, well we'll see won't we. I certainly don't expect to ever be able to
stop working even if your kids are highly successful and are lucky enough to earn lots of money. This country, and I include Scotland in that even if
you don't like it, is full of fatherless children with no morals or ethics or desire to work largely due to the way a single mother can get
money, flat and everything else she needs just by having kids.
As it goes, I could use a little help myself but don't get much. I full time care for someone and then I have a daughter with a congenital heart
condition too. She is nearly 10 and has had 2 open heart surgeries so far and more to come. I don't get any help at all. I get a carers
allowance, about £90 a week and I work as much as I can to fill in the big hole this leaves but can only do so much. If I was a single mother I'd
get lots of help, I wonder why we have the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe?!
I think it is fair to say that if you and your wife are paying enough tax to cover the education of your children after a fair amount is deducted for
NHS, policing etc. then you are truly blessed with good fortune. I may have to move to Scotland, got any jobs going?
Flipping 'ell, calm down before you spontaneously combust or something...
1. I was kidding about the cull the elderly thing, I didn't think I had to spell that out.
2. Whether my kids pay for your old age or not matters not, I was only making a point that "our" collective children will in time pay the
taxes to keep things going for the older generation.
3. Scotland is a separate country but has many of the same issues as England I agree. It also has some good points and bad points compared to England
but it is certainly not overpopulated which was my main point.
4. Sorry to hear about your difficulties, we have had a few of our own along the way but I'm not going to go into that now. I certainly wish your
daughter every good fortune with her treatment and I hope you do get some help. It sounds like you need & deserve it. My Mum looked after an
elderly neighbour for many years (not even a relative) after his own son virtually abandoned him. It took a long time to earn his trust and get him to
accept help as he was a very proud old man. Suffice to say his final years were a marked improvement in terms of quality of life. I used to go and
talk to him any time I had a school project as he knew the local area very well and gave me great material for it. He was always chuffed when I got
good marks as a result of his help.
5. I pay around £800pm of tax and my wife pays something like £500pm. This is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of overall tax though as you will
be aware (eg. VAT, fuel duty, inheritance, stamp duty etc). I'm pretty confident we pay our way and a bit more besides. I'm also 100%
confident that our earnings would not allow us to survive in the south east unless our earnings were substantially higher.
6. Not sure where exactly you live just now but Scotland is not a bad place to live by any means and you would be very welcome to come. My wife and I
were recently on a weekend break up at Aviemore and the scenery is truly lovely. Once the kids are off on their own we will seriously consider moving
up there to live. I have mild asthma and I noticed that my symptoms were completely non-existent while breathing that clean air. Just don't get
me started on diesel cars...
Anyway, I still think you have taken my earlier comments the wrong way but I can perhaps see where you are coming from at the same time. I really hope
that you get some support soon - don't give up looking and asking for it.
All the best,
Craig.
Ninehigh - 4/10/10 at 10:10 PM
Ok you don't want to pay for my kids I don't want to pay for your broken leg, or street lights, or the copper to turn up after the pikeys
have been through your garage.
Seriously we all pay for the things whether it's choice or not. I don't choose for you to get cancer...
We don't even want CB, or tax credit. Despite what our local MP thinks (who thinks it's great we get CB and TC) I want to be earning enough
to not need, or even be entitled to anything. I want to be earning 44k a year, screw it 44k a month!
As it stands I have no idea how much we actually get from the government to help pay for these "children" (they're both taller than me)
but no doubt they eat that.
No we shouldn't have these benefits, we should have benefits to help us get off them as if they vanished we'd be b**gered