Question Child Benefit changes

[rynnor]

What do people think of them? It was interesting that Cameron didnt seem to tell any of the rest of his party before he said it?

Currently it will hit any family who has 1 parent earning over 43800 which is about a million of the 7.1 million who receive it.

However the higher rate tax bracket is due to come down to 38k by 2015 which will then mean over 3 million families that currently receive it will lose out - thats nearly half.

An unexpected impact is that women currently earn pension credits for the state pension as a side effect of drawing child benefit will lose those credits which would mean a lower state pension at retirement because they lack qualifying years.

Not to mention the terrible flaw of people earning 80k qualifying but a single parent earning 44k not - is it really so hard for the taxman to add two numbers?

Personally I think this will end up being dropped like the 10% tax rate - its particularly harsh on the old style traditional families which is kinda strange since the Conservatives generally maintain they support such families??

 

[Lollie]

it needs to be means tested

 

[rynnor]

it needs to be means tested

The weird thing about it is that they already have the figures on family income because of child tax credits - why dont they use these to see total family income?

The next obvious target is the old peoples fuel allowance - is it fair that millionaire pensioners should receive it?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Help to the needy really. The system should, note should(in this country as well) to actually see if someone needs assistance and who doesn't.

You get benefits even with 100k on your bank account? Don't think so.

Problem is that they would need a buttload more officials to see through the records and not automate them. It's not a realistic way to handle it and if it's automated, creating a foolproof system is not possible.

 

[ECA]

I don't think there should be any child benefit, it was a post-war entitlement to promote childbirth.

Why should I pay for you to have a sprog if you can't support them yourself?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Single parents(by accident or moronic parents who left after), sudden unemployment etc variables considered, yes, you should pay for your own kid.

 

[rynnor]

I don't think there should be any child benefit, it was a post-war entitlement to promote childbirth.

Why should I pay for you to have a sprog if you can't support them yourself?

It got re-done in the 70s - the original one only paid out if you had more than one child.

Is it wrong for society to help raise children who will one day be taxpayers?

Why do we pay a state pension - they should have been saving no? Its a slippery slope.

Edit - one of the worst things about this is the deadzone they have made at the higher rate threshold - its calculated that a family with 3 kids who has 1 person who moves into the higher rate bracket has to earn at least 47800 to not lose money as a consequence of a pay rise - crazy stuff.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Its a slippery slope.

That's only an excuse for not sticking with the plan

"Benefits for all" makes people not save up(cause they don't need to) and get kids willynilly(cause they can afford to).

Those things are not "good things".

If there was no pension or child benefit; people ould save up 'cause they know they need to or starve to death, and would REALLY consider getting kids.

For every jobworthy taxpaying prime citizen larva, there's two or three that do nothing but harm.

 

[ECA]

Why do we pay a state pension - they should have been saving no? Its a slippery slope.

How are they even comparable?

 

[dysfunction]

There does need to be reform of the system but the new proposals are badly thought out!
It is not, as they keep saying, "fair"!

 

[Ch3tan]

The problem is that they were given in the first place, people see it as a right, and are upset when it's taken away. It's probably a bit harsh, should have phased it out more gently.

If you can't afford kids, don't have them.

 

[ford prefect]

I am a little confused as to why anyone earning over £40k would need child benefit anyway. You cut your cloth accordingly ect. Budget better and stop having kids when you can't afford any more.

I don't think these cuts go far enough to be honest.

As I understand it, when these cuts come in, if both parents are earning £40k each, they still get child benefit because it isn't calculated of the house hold income. That’s just ridiculous, especially when you consider that carers allowance is still means tested and works out at £215 per month and is currently taken away if you earn more than £80 per week or do more than 15 hours work.

They are also wasting millions in the next few years forcing everyone on Disability Living Allowance to undertake a medical examination to determine if they should keep the allowance. This has two major problems. Firstly this medical is will be carried out by an independent GP, who won't have medical records and will have twenty minutes to get a full overview of your disability and how it affects your life, so you better not be having a "good day" when you go and see him (Still, these GP’s will be paid £70 for each one they do - so I am sure they are happy about it). Secondly, three independent studies have put fraudulent DLA claims at around 6-7%, the government is aiming at a 20% reduction on DLA claimants between 2013 and 2016.

 

[GReaper]

Benefits should go to those who need it, they shouldn't be something which everyone in the entire country gets at some point in their life and starts to feel entitled to because they've paid into "the system".

It's a waste. Giving money out to those who don't necessarily need it means more has to be spent on benefits overall. I'd rather see benefits going where it's genuinely needed, or less taxation.

The next obvious target is the old peoples fuel allowance - is it fair that millionaire pensioners should receive it?

This is yet another benefit given out far too freely when not everyone needs it. £250 per household to anyone over 60 - do people who are still in work necessarily need it? Do people with fat pensions need it?

 

[DaGaffer]

"Benefits for all" makes people not save up(cause they don't need to) and get kids willynilly(cause they can afford to).

Those things are not "good things".

They are "saving up" (or at least thought they were), that's why payments into the social welfare system in the UK are called National Insurance. The reality is that National Insurance is no longer anything of the sort, its just another tax; but the principle is still that you will have a safety net when you need it.

If there was no pension or child benefit; people ould save up 'cause they know they need to or starve to death, and would REALLY consider getting kids.

For every jobworthy taxpaying prime citizen larva, there's two or three that do nothing but harm.

That's clearly crap. The biggest problem affecting almost every country in Europe is that there aren't enough kids being born to pay for the ageing populations in the future, because people are making the decision to put off kids because they can't afford it; and the idea that for every potential good citizen being born there are 2-3 bad 'uns is also demonstrably nonsense.

In fact, there's definitely a case to say a kind of financial Darwinism is in action because responsible but poor people don't have kids to instil decent values in, whereas the irresponsible ones don't give a crap one way or another and drop sprogs irrespectively because they have no intention of raising or supporting them properly anyway, benefits system or not.

In principle the welfare state is a damn site better than the alternatives (represented by the USA and the Third World); its just that application of the welfare state is an incredibly difficult balancing act.

NB. Those 40K wage slaves getting child benefit; take a look at the amount they put in to the tax system before pontificating about their right to child benefit. You'll probably find its better to top their income up by a few quid than have mothers quit the labour market altogether to raise their children because they can no longer afford childcare. For a family with two 40K taxpayers, you can bet that one of them is dumping nearly half their net income into childcare (which is creating more jobs btw), and effectively working to keep up their pension payments.

 

[dysfunction]

The next obvious target is the old peoples fuel allowance - is it fair that millionaire pensioners should receive it?

Yes that is really daft

Alan Sugar gets the winter fuel allowance.
He said he was on the phone for an hour trying to stop them paying it to him but they said they could not stop the payments.

So he gives the money to charity instead...

 

[old.Tohtori]

DaGaf, no it's not clearly crap. People are used to living in luxury, hell, people with no job experience are driving cars and popping 40" flats on their walls.

No one cares for their own future cause "Well they have benefits and all".

If there was no security net, you wouldn't rely on one and you'd be a tad mroe careful on what you spend and do.

Also, i would argue that 1/3rd of the larva born will actually benefit the civ, with maybe 1/2 of what's left being good workforce and the rest just waste of space.

People CAN be irresponsible because you know, you KNOW that no matter how many kids you drop, the state will take care of them with some means or other.

About working people earning their support with payments? That's a bit counterproductive, kinda like taxing benefits. Useless bullcrap.

IF the system worked in a way that you only get in benefits what you pay in tax, then we'd have a working system where you get what you deserve. That ofcourse requiring the state to actually leave people to die if they don't put effort in.

 

[Ch3tan]

I think the problems you are describing are due more to the easy availability of credit rather than the welfare system.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I think the problems you are describing are due more to the easy availability of credit rather than the welfare system.

I think you might be right, without debt, any job is enough to support atlast one kid and get a pension scheme going. We earn actually quite ridicilous amounts of money. With no extra payments, even a low income person can have up to 500 euro extra spending cash. That's ridicilous

There's another subject of change ofcourse, but that would mean we take the creditsystem away from moneymaking corporations and make it a state thingydoo.

 

[MYstIC G]

Currently it will hit any family who has 1 parent earning over 43800 which is about a million of the 7.1 million who receive it.

However the higher rate tax bracket is due to come down to 38k by 2015 which will then mean over 3 million families that currently receive it will lose out - thats nearly half.

Depends, is it explicitly linked to the higher rate tax bracket? If you've got a source to hand it'd be appreciated as I'm keen to read up a bit about this.

 

[rynnor]

Depends, is it explicitly linked to the higher rate tax bracket? If you've got a source to hand it'd be appreciated as I'm keen to read up a bit about this.

It is linked to 'higher rate taxpayers' in Camerons speech - the rest I saw on some money site - partly its caused by the proposed increases in personal tax allowances - they didnt want the higher earners to benefit so they are compensating by lowering the threshold for higher rate tax.

 

[DaGaffer]

DaGaf, no it's not clearly crap. People are used to living in luxury, hell, people with no job experience are driving cars and popping 40" flats on their walls.

Oh noes, people living in "luxury". How dare they have a tv and a car! (which in real terms are now a far smaller percentage of the average income than they were 30 years ago). This is the capitalist system, and if everyone was slapping down a down payment on a yacht, I'd take your point, but they aren't, so I don't. A 40" flatscreen is less than average monthly food bill for a family of four.

No one cares for their own future cause "Well they have benefits and all".

Seriously, you've been reading the Finnish equivalent of the Daily Mail too much. Most people are terrified of ending up at the mercy of the benefits system.

If there was no security net, you wouldn't rely on one and you'd be a tad mroe careful on what you spend and do.

And as I said, most people don't rely on benefits, but that doesn't mean there aren't people in circumstances where being careful with what they spend is irrelevant. My father-in-law has to look after and autistic son and a disabled wife; and still tries to do freelance work when he can, but without the benefits system the three of them would be fucked, through no fault of their own.

Also, i would argue that 1/3rd of the larva born will actually benefit the civ, with maybe 1/2 of what's left being good workforce and the rest just waste of space.

Which is a different number to your first quote, but its still a random figure you've pulled out of your arse.

People CAN be irresponsible because you know, you KNOW that no matter how many kids you drop, the state will take care of them with some means or other.

The feckless have always had more kids than the responsible; look back a hundred years to before there were any benefits for all the proof you need. The welfare state is neither here nor there because their real income will be crime anyway. And even if true, the benefits of the welfare state for those in real need outweigh the disadvantages of a few chav mums.

About working people earning their support with payments? That's a bit counterproductive, kinda like taxing benefits. Useless bullcrap.

Its not, because sometimes that kind of thing is the "least worst" way to deal with a problem. You could argue it would actually make more sense to bin child allowances and give state subsidies directly to childcare providers to bring down costs, but it may be the extra processes involved work against that. Just because it looks like bullcrap to you, doesn't mean it is; it just means neither of us understand the processes involved.

IF the system worked in a way that you only get in benefits what you pay in tax, then we'd have a working system where you get what you deserve. That ofcourse requiring the state to actually leave people to die if they don't put effort in.

And personally I don't want to live in that particular universe thanks. I'm quite happy my for my taxes to be spent on healthcare, education and a level of social welfare, because I happen to think that's the sign of a civilised society. Do I think the amount I pay in or the way its paid out is perfect? Of course not (for instance here in Ireland too much money goes to social welfare, not enough to health), but I still don't think its wrong in principle.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well you pretty much simply disagree with everything i said, as per opinion, so that's about it for that discussion line

As a bottom line; the current system doesn't work, it's not there to help those who need it, it's there for everyone and as such those who need it, get less.

 

[yaruar]

I think you might be right, without debt, any job is enough to support atlast one kid and get a pension scheme going. We earn actually quite ridicilous amounts of money. With no extra payments, even a low income person can have up to 500 euro extra spending cash. That's ridicilous

There's another subject of change ofcourse, but that would mean we take the creditsystem away from moneymaking corporations and make it a state thingydoo.

I don't know what it's like in your neck of the woods but rent+childcare= about 90% of my take home pay and i earn a fuck of a lot compared to most people. If we were to have a second one ofus would have to quit work which is saying something when both members of the household are earning well above the national wage.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't know what it's like in your neck of the woods but rent+childcare= about 90% of my take home pay and i earn a fuck of a lot compared to most people. If we were to have a second one ofus would have to quit work which is saying something when both members of the household are earning well above the national wage.

I was talking of an individual living on own.

Childcare is ofcourse an added cost, of own choosing

Then again we could have a whole discussion on if child costs are that high by pampering, or by need, but let's not get into that

 

[ECA]

The Daily Mail, the gift that never stops giving

As families face benefits cuts Kelly Marshall spent hers on £4,500 BOOB JOB | Mail Online

Most families who are due to lose their child benefit are worrying about how they'll make ends meet without it.
But for Kelly Marshall, who has five children by four different fathers, the handout has never been about paying for nappies, food and other everyday expenses.
She saved her benefit money to help pay for breast enhancement.
And as many parents envisage tightening their belts after the Tories announced plans to cut the benefit for higher-rate taxpayers, she plans to save more of hers for liposuction and a tummy tuck.
Miss Marshall, who has never worked, rakes in almost £29,000 a year from benefits - and last year spent £4,500 to go from a 34A to a 34DD.

 

[old.user4556]

How many pints would it take before you shag her?

Vote now!

 

[old.Tohtori]

None!

No one said anything about enjoying the shag

 

[Raven]

If you can't afford to have 30 kids don't have them. If you can't afford a couple of kids on 45k then you are obviously spending money on shiny things that you don't need.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If you can't afford to have 30 kids don't have them. If you can't afford a couple of kids on 45k then you are obviously spending money on shiny things that you don't need.

Exactly.

Beyond medical and food bills, what extra costs do kids have that are imperative? (Asking, not commenting. Well, bit of commenting with a stance to change view if answered )

Or are peope who make 45ki a year trying to keep kids AND their usual luxury way of life(that of 45k/year)?

Because that ofcourse means you can't afford it.

 

[ECA]

How many pints would it take before you shag her?

Vote now!

We paid for those boobs, imo we get to motorboat them for free.