Too posh for dosh !!

mitchaa

Child benefit should be limited to 2 children rather than cut for those that have a decent income. This would stop the breeding kids for money culture.

As you all know, the riff raff at the bottom getting their LHA and council tax and god knows what else free from the taxpayer are more often than not better off than those that work.

How would it work? You have LHA rates in some parts of the country at £750pw if not more. Why should a benefit family get their £20pw CB whilst receiving this £750pw subsidy and not the hard working couple who have to fork out the same £750pw through their earned income just to live next door to them.

That's not fair surely?

Its the whole LHA culture that is to blame to start with. Benefit claimants should be housed in high rises rather than newly built homes in my opinion. Those who work and who are low paid should be getting these new council/social houses, those who are on benefits should get the old dross of housing.

I know far too many people milking the system, everyone appears to be doing it. Kind of makes me think, what on earth am i getting up at half past 6 every morning for:mad:

Rant over for today, there, i feel better now:D

Scroungers the lot of you:p

Jonbvn

mitchaa wrote: »

I know far too many people milking the system, everyone appears to be doing it. Kind of makes me think, what on earth am i getting up at half past 6 every morning for:mad:

6:30 you say! I've done half a day's work by then!;)

StevieJ

Jonbvn wrote: »

6:30 you say! I've done half a day's work by then!;)

Do you mean you work nights and clock off at 6:30

tomterm8

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

It is rather bizarre that people get child benefit whatever their income.

Historically, the costs involved in means testing the benefit have been considered greater than the amount of money saved. Personally, I would scrap the child benefit altogether and add the money saved to the childcare element of working tax credit.

The_White_Horse

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

It is rather bizarre that people get child benefit whatever their income, I have always thought so. If that stopped just think how better that money could be spent.

what? on low life chav filth you spurt out a child a year??? these people should get NOTHING! only then will they realise they can't keep having kids they can't afford to raise.

Better a decent family get some of their hard earned tax back as a gesture from the govt. people earning over 50k don't have that much spare, especially if it is one earner taxed at 40% paying all the bills, and the mortgage.

The best thing to do is give it for only ONE child.

lostinrates

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

It is rather bizarre that people get child benefit whatever their income, I have always thought so. If that stopped just think how better that money could be spent.

FWIW it is not mandatory to accept the child benefit. However, at some point your child then has to apply for a NS number. It is not MSE on the normal individual focus of MSE to suggest not taking money available to your household, but it is possibly MSE on a considerably larger scale for the country.

michaels

As posted by Generali, makes you realise just how clever Mr Clown is in a Baldrick sort of way - so many are now bribed with their own money that voting against Labour can be portrayed as turkeys voting for Christmas. I would lose out if child benefit was means tested but that does not mean that it wouldn't be fair to do so.

However as others have pointed out means tested benefits are expensive to administer so probably best to scrap the benefit altogether and add the money to a different benefit already administered on a means tested basis.

The_White_Horse

best thing to do is stop all benefits.

then lets see who has a bad back. lazy good for nothing spongers. then, those lefty do gooders who want to pay more tax to help those worse off can adopt a sponger and give them 50% of their income. they can actually see their money make a difference. they can even go with their adopted sponger to buy them their fags and booze and dog food.

bendix

The_White_Horse wrote: »

best thing to do is stop all benefits.

then lets see who has a bad back. lazy good for nothing spongers. then, those lefty do gooders who want to pay more tax to help those worse off can adopt a sponger and give them 50% of their income. they can actually see their money make a difference. they can even go with their adopted sponger to buy them their fags and booze and dog food.

Now you're talking. To a certain degree this is what Minister of Finance Ruth Richardson did in New Zealand in the early 1990s. She out-Thatchered Thatcher. And, needless to say, it worked. She introduced a boomtime for the NZ economy which - again needless to say - the NZ Labour Party poured water over when they returned to power.

Idiots.

littlemermaid_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Better a decent family get some of their hard earned tax back as a gesture from the govt. people earning over 50k don't have that much spare, especially if it is one earner taxed at 40% paying all the bills, and the mortgage.

So that's £2,984.20 after tax per month for an earner on £50k, before any extra child benefit etc...

As someone unemployed receiving £64.30 a week (I don't have kids, admittedly, don't want them!), I do feel their pain! Private school fees must cost a bomb these days...