Too posh for dosh !!

bendix

mitchaa wrote: »

I claim my £80 child benefit every 4wks yes please. Admittedly, i dont need it and it goes straight into my little 1's saving account so i guess that's what D.C is getting at.

However, between the both of us, our IT and NIC is around £24k pa so £1k back in the form of child benefit I see as a tax rebate rather than a benefit as such.

Im proud not to claim 'benefits' as such but i'd be silly not to claim the £20pw CB. I suspect even the Beckhams accountants will be claiming for their 3 aswell, otherwise if not, they need the boot for not maximising their income.

How can you be proud of not claiming benefits in the same post that says you take £80 a month that you don't need?

Has it never dawned on you that your taxes are high purely because there are millions of households generally who claim benefits they don't need?

mitchaa

bendix wrote: »

How can you be proud of not claiming benefits in the same post that says you take £80 a month that you don't need?

Has it never dawned on you that your taxes are high purely because there are millions of households generally who claim benefits they don't need?

No it has not dawned on me as my taxation contributions through PAYE are always going to be the same regardless if i were taking that £20pw or not. Your point works well in theory but you know as well as i do, that in reality, not claiming that £20pw would make no impact whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. Why would i refuse £1000pa, it's not very moneysaving

Like i said, i personally see my CB as a tax rebate although yes you are right it is classed as a benefit and i am taking that from the central pot.

Do not take the £20pw from me (The country needs people like me to pay taxation) Instead, limit CB/CTC to 2 children and stop the unemployed local bike from raking it in as a baby making factory.

mitchaa

Actually i think the point raised by Cameron was CTC and not the universal child benefit?

I agree £58k is too high for tax credits.

slipthru

mitchaa wrote: »

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.

Total agreement here.

I think this is something they will do in the not to distant future regardless of whether they income limit it now.

bendix

mitchaa wrote: »

No it has not dawned on me as my taxation contributions through PAYE are always going to be the same regardless if i were taking that £20pw or not. Your point works well in theory but you know as well as i do, that in reality, not claiming that £20pw would make no impact whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. Why would i refuse £1000pa, it's not very moneysaving

Like i said, i personally see my CB as a tax rebate although yes you are right it is classed as a benefit and i am taking that from the central pot.

Do not take the £20pw from me (The country needs people like me to pay taxation) Instead, limit CB/CTC to 2 children and stop the unemployed local bike from raking it in as a baby making factory.

Your choice I suppose. I don't get your logic. Individual actions combined make up the national totality. Your individual actions - and the millions of others who think like you - are DIRECTLY related to the high benefit high taxation culture we find ourselves in today.

By taking benefits you don't need, you lose your moral and intellectual right to rail against high income taxes.

The_White_Horse

i would take everything you can get. the low ife sponging masses seem to do alright. Just take what you can. no room for principals. You may not want the cash, but you should take it. it only goes to house people like Baby P's parents, or buy them a new identity when they are released.

wolvoman

PasturesNew wrote: »

It's true, you have thousands of people without kids earning £12-20k/year and struggling, while people who have it coming out of their ears get child benefit that they don't need and don't even notice. How can you notice £10-20/week when you're already taking home more than £688/week as a single earner of £50k, or £737/week if you're a couple with a combined income of £50k.

Those earning £50k are already paying a gigantic amount MORE tax than those on £20k a year. I'd say that was justification enough for receiving the SAME benefit.

Generali

wolvoman wrote: »

Those earning £50k are already paying a gigantic amount MORE tax than those on £20k a year. I'd say that was justification enough for receiving the SAME benefit.

Surely better to reduce the tax and save paying 2 lots of Civil Servants?

bendix

wolvoman wrote: »

Those earning £50k are already paying a gigantic amount MORE tax than those on £20k a year. I'd say that was justification enough for receiving the SAME benefit.

What strange logic. They (and I include myself in this) are paying gigantic amounts more tax because we earn gigantic salaries. Ipso facto, we don't need benefits.

It is ridiculous to suggest we somehow deserve benefits because we pay more tax.

There is a fundamental truism here. If people earn enough money to support themselves and their loved ones, it is morally bankrupt of them to take social welfare handouts they don't need. Those same people also lose the moral highground when it comes to complaining about benefit cheats and high taxes.

The Welfare State should ONLY be there to prop up those in most dire need, and even then it should only provide a subsistence. For relatively wealthy pensioners to claim their £250 heating allowance or for well-earning parents to claim the £20 a week child benefit simply because they can goes to the very heart of the 'me me me me me' society we live in.

drc

I don't think benefits should be means tested. Why should someone who has worked hard and progressed and paid into the system all their lives be penalised for working? There are plenty of people on over £50k who have paid loads into the system and who have subsidised the benefits of those who have never worked. Rather, the system should encourage everyone to work not penalise those who have been more prudent and worked hard. The welfare state should be the last resort. Not a cushy lifestyle choice of those who can't be bothered or responsible and not everyone who is on benefits is 'vulnerable'.