Another one of those benefits threads

drc

I've never understood the logic of penalising those that are higher earners when it comes to child benefit. If they've contributed to the system through NI and tax, then why shouldn't they get something back? Doesn't child benefit give those that have worked hard and perservered some sense that they are being rewarded for doing well (not every high earner is a bloodsucking banker or mp, some have worked bloody hard to get where they are).

If you penalise those that are earning a higher wage from getting child benefit are you not penalising their children and saying their parents are somehow wrong to be earning more? Why is it penalising the child of a poor worker/benefit recipient if you remove tax credits/child benefit but not penalising the child of a higher earner if you remove child benefit? Isn't child benefit for the child afterall, not the parents? I'm so sick of this culture which sees success and ambition as something which should be punished, rather than encouraging it by making it economically and socially desirable to be ambitious and I'm sick of the middle classes (not bankers or inheritors of large wealth etc) being the sacrificial lambs of socialist thinking which undermines success and hard work in favour of mundanity and equality of outcome.

lemonjelly

SingleSue wrote: »

I agree in regards to your point about unfortunate circumstances, we could afford to have our children when we chose to do so..it happens and is not actually that rare an occurance.

I also agree with the child benefit and means testing, at one point, we didn't need it, it was just a nice little bonus to be put away in our savings account (Disneyland Paris 1st class all the way got the fruits of that! Kids loved it as it was a surprise treat for them).

But I disagree with the over 60's, mainly I think because I see what my parents receive (nothing apart from a basic pension as dad had private pensions which takes them over pension credit levels). The vast majority of pensioners have worked and paid into the system for many many years and not taken anything out of the pot for all that time.

I would much rather a pensioner received a bit extra to heat their home than for me to receive a bit extra to get extra food....I can go without the extra food as a healthy adult but a pensioner counting the pennies, cannot go without the heat and stay healthy.

In general terms Sue, the benefits system has been significantly balanced in the interests of the majority of the over 60's for a few years now. The changes have been massivley in their favour.

I've posted a few times my thoughts regarding benefits & the over 60's & how the changes have benefitted them. Especially for example with pension credits being reviewed every 6+ years, meaning that you can sell a house after being awarded PC (& housing & c tax benefits) bank 200k & still get the 3 benefits.

The vast majority of over 60's are very well off under the current benefit rules. Those who don't qualify, will generally find that their income puts them above the entitlement, which kind of implies their income is sufficient. (Though if they are awarded Attendance allowance, this will increase their chances of qualifying).

Attendance Allowance
Pension Credit
housing benefit
council tax benefit
winter fuel allowance
free travel passes
plus many many more...

Harry_Powell

drc wrote: »

I've never understood the logic of penalising those that are higher earners when it comes to child benefit. If they've contributed to the system through NI and tax, then why shouldn't they get something back? Doesn't child benefit give those that have worked hard and perservered some sense that they are being rewarded for doing well (not every high earner is a bloodsucking banker or mp, some have worked bloody hard to get where they are).

If you penalise those that are earning a higher wage from getting child benefit are you not penalising their children and saying their parents are somehow wrong to be earning more? Why is it penalising the child of a poor worker/benefit recipient if you remove tax credits/child benefit but not penalising the child of a higher earner if you remove child benefit? Isn't child benefit for the child afterall, not the parents? I'm so sick of this culture which sees success and ambition as something which should be punished, rather than encouraging it by making it economically and socially desirable to be ambitious and I'm sick of the middle classes (not bankers or inheritors of large wealth etc) being the sacrificial lambs of socialist thinking which undermines success and hard work in favour of mundanity and equality of outcome.

Are you saying that all means-testing should be scrapped and that benefits be made available to all, in equal amounts?

lemonjelly

drc wrote: »

I've never understood the logic of penalising those that are higher earners when it comes to child benefit. If they've contributed to the system through NI and tax, then why shouldn't they get something back? Doesn't child benefit give those that have worked hard and perservered some sense that they are being rewarded for doing well (not every high earner is a bloodsucking banker or mp, some have worked bloody hard to get where they are).

The whole idea of a welfare state is to assist those in genuine need. The idea being floated, is does a high earner really need that support? In reality, could they not support themselves & their family without relying on the state?

I've never understood this "i paid in so i should get something out" notion. We all have roads, hospitals, schools, our rubbish is collected & so on. So we all take out of the system. If we all pay in & expect something out, why have a system at all? Surely the idea of the system is to assist those who can't/struggle to assist themselves?

kabayiri

In general I have no problem with a state benefit scheme, to assist people in different ways.

It is however, weak in one crucial area, in my view.

It is seen as a constant, unwaivering in it's ability to provide a consistent level of support. But clearly, the people providing these funds can not always provide a consistent level of support.

When individual people's budgets are stretched, like they are right now, they learn to adjust and reprioritise.

So why shouldn't this filter down to all those people supported by the state system? Shouldn't we try and achieve a shared mentality.

How does this link in with the OP?
Well, the way I read it is the person in question had almost made a career choice. This was based on the assumption the state would always be there, providing this cushion.

Perhaps, we have to change this attitude. The state should be there in the times we need it, and inbetween, we exercise our social responsibility to put back in.

This is EXACTLY the mentality Sue demonstrates I believe.

When you end up with a large culture of take without any consideration of where it's coming from, you are in trouble as a society.

drc

lemonjelly wrote: »

The whole idea of a welfare state is to assist those in genuine need. The idea being floated, is does a high earner really need that support? In reality, could they not support themselves & their family without relying on the state?

I've never understood this "i paid in so i should get something out" notion. We all have roads, hospitals, schools, our rubbish is collected & so on. So we all take out of the system. If we all pay in & expect something out, why have a system at all? Surely the idea of the system is to assist those who can't/struggle to assist themselves?

The problem is that the welfare state no longer pays out to those in "genuine need". Seeing by the numerous articles that are posted on this site of families who are not necessarily in genuine need but have more and more kids in order to maximise their benefit gain I no longer believe that the welfare state is doing what it was set out to do. It has become a lifestyle and entitlement train for many and rather than assisting those who can't/struggle to assist themselves, it seems to perpetuate the very problem it was created to resolve, namely entrenching a whole group of people into a lifestyle choice that is too economically attractive to give up. I believe in encouraging hardwork through reward. I don't believe in a) penalising those that work hard and b) mollycoddling and stripping responsibility from those that choose not to work at the expense of others. I also know of several cases of people who have worked all their lives and paid their contributions who are now not entitled to the any help from the welfare state on being made redundant.

The welfare state in its original and true form was the most altrusitic and morally responsible institution in the UK. However, its values and principles have been horribly warped and it is no longer doing what it was created to do (and I don't believe it always helps those genuinely in need in the best ways, either economically or socially).

Harry_Powell

drc wrote: »

The problem is that the welfare state no longer pays out to those in "genuine need". Seeing by the numerous articles that are posted on this site of families who are not necessarily in genuine need but have more and more kids in order to maximise their benefit gain I no longer believe that the welfare state is doing what it was set out to do. It has become a lifestyle and entitlement train for many and rather than assisting those who can't/struggle to assist themselves, it seems to perpetuate the very problem it was created to resolve, namely entrenching a whole group of people into a lifestyle choice that is too economically attractive to give up. I believe in encouraging hardwork through reward. I don't believe in a) penalising those that work hard and b) mollycoddling and stripping responsibility from those that choose not to work at the expense of others. I also know of several cases of people who have worked all their lives and paid their contributions who are now not entitled to the any help from the welfare state on being made redundant.

The welfare state in its original and true form was the most altrusitic and morally responsible institution in the UK. However, its values and principles have been horribly warped and it is no longer doing what it was created to do (and I don't believe it always helps those genuinely in need in the best ways, either economically or socially).

Well this is a complete U-turn from what you were saying earlier!! Make your mind up!

drc

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Well this is a complete U-turn from what you were saying earlier!! Make your mind up!

Yes, I can see what you are saying. I am not making myself very clear am I. My mind is a muddle today.

Harry_Powell

drc wrote: »

Yes, I can see what you are saying. I am not making myself very clear am I. My mind is a muddle today.

That's ok, it's Friday!!! Yayyy!!!

GreenNinja

carolt wrote: »

I've been holding this in, but there's another whole very cross benefit thread in me that needs to come out - I did some calculations on the wonderfully-named 'entitledto' website just prior to the election and was shocked to discover how utterly pointless my bothering to work was (at least financially - I couldn't live with myself if I was a leech like this woman...).

Sorry to all those who hate these threads - but I don't think the point can be said enough that we as a country simply cannot afford to incentivise people in this way - to deliberately divorce, not work and have innumerable children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1276818/I-afford-stay-married-lose-200-week-benefits-says-mother-seven-children-fathers.html

I completely agree with you! I have worked full time since leaving education and now at the age of 43 I am sick of working full time so that numerous other people can lounge around all day at home and claim benefits. I am not talking about genuine people that claim benefit, but the lazy scroungers that like a free ride. I would love to know what proportion of my tax is spent on these !!!!!!!!!!s!