scootz
|
| posted on 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
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 03:27 PM |
|
|
Fancy one more Fozzie?
You could be my mum any day
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 03:36 PM |
|
|
Sorry, but IMO anyone earning in the top tax bracket is just being greedy.
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 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 
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
whitestu
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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......
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
40inches
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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?
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
Jubal
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
l0rd
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 06:50 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
l0rd
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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.
Mojo build diary: http://www.madinventions.co.uk
Solo music project: Syrrenfor http://www.reverbnation.com/syrrenfor
View my band website:
http://www.shadowlight.org.uk
http://www.eastangliankitcars.co.uk/
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 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.
|
|
|
