If the PM DID means test child benefit could you manage without it?

kafkathecat

Do people not think that higher rate tax payers pay the benefit and more back in taxes anyway? And while in principle limiting it to 2 children seems a good idea at the end of the day if the parents have more children it is they who suffer, then benefit is for the children. Why are we all fighting over the crumbs when businesses and the really rich could in fact pay much more tax than they do without even noticing?

seraphina

kafkathecat wrote: »

Do people not think that higher rate tax payers pay the benefit and more back in taxes anyway? And while in principle limiting it to 2 children seems a good idea at the end of the day if the parents have more children it is they who suffer, then benefit is for the children. Why are we all fighting over the crumbs when businesses and the really rich could in fact pay much more tax than they do without even noticing?

Taxes are not a bank account - just because you put more in does not mean you are entitled to more out. If you got out according to what you put in then many people would be entitled to sod all...

FATBALLZ

msb5262 wrote: »

That was really helpful - NOT.

I could have managed without CB if my marriage hadn't ended in divorce.

Any more smart comments?

MsB

It wasn't meant to be helpful. It was a reality check. So what happens in other countries where people don't get a government paycheck for having a shag? Does nobody manage if the parents split up?

FATBALLZ

julie2710 wrote: »

You took the words right out of my mouth! I had my two when I was married, both of us had good full time jobs and had been together 10 years! I'm now left with a huge mortgage, child care costs and no help. In all honesty if I'd known my marriage was going to end I probably wouldnt have had kids. Not because I couldn't afford them but because now I could be having the easy life my ex is having with no one to care about but me!!!

Oh right, so Child Benefit should be paid so people can afford mortgages. I never knew that.

kafkathecat

seraphina wrote: »

Taxes are not a bank account - just because you put more in does not mean you are entitled to more out. If you got out according to what you put in then many people would be entitled to sod all...

But that isn't what I said. My point is that universal benefits are very simple to administer, ensure that all, even the most needy receive them and that the well off more than balance what they receive with what they pay out.

supa-girl

msb5262 wrote: »

The difficulty here is that circumstances change - I am currently finding it quite hard to support my children as my marriage ended in divorce. According to your theory, I should "stop having children I can't support"...rather difficult as they're now 12, 14 and 16. Presumably I should tell them I'm having to let them go due to the recession!

MsB

This is my point too - circumstances do change. I have 5 children and as I said before, when we had them we could afford to pay for a large family but since my OH's business went under things are more challenging. So for us it's not a case of keeping on having children we couldn't afford, it's a case of having had children when we could afford them and finding that our situation has suddenly, unexpectedly and drastically changed.

OH is still working, he was lucky enough to find a job straightaway, but our income is a lot less than it used to be. We've cut back a lot and can manage but cb helps us to do that day to day, we use it for things like school uniforms, shoes, shopping etc.

If they only pay it for 2 children, what about those of us who already have more than that? I hate this assumption that if you are struggling you have been irresponsible and popped out kids you can't support. I hope that those with that kind of attitude never find themselves in the same situation! :mad:

SG

LilacPixie

I don't think anyone has another child for the £13.40PW child benefit. They cost a whole lot more than that. I don't see anything wrong with families using child benefit for ballet, swimming or music lessons because after all these things are to benefit the child in the long run.

I still think means testing will cost far too much to impliment and just won't happen.

ceridwen

galvanizersbaby wrote: »

No need to be rude - and I think you mean grasp? - I was surprised because I thought the take up for child benefit was 100% - assumably you don't claim it for your child because your not entitled to it - i.e. whoever your child lives with claims it for your child.

If your not entitled to CB it isn't going to make any difference to you so why bother to comment if it's not relevant to you

Hes making the point that no-one HAS to claim a benefit just because its there and they COULD claim it if they chose to......<puzzled smilie as to why anyone wouldnt understand that point......>

ceridwen

jamespir wrote: »

it is releveant to me i could claim it if i wanted too but i dont

Good for you:T :T :T

ceridwen

beckseven wrote: »

I would miss it-I'm a working mum and use it towards my child care. I've paid NI and taxes since I was 21 so why shouldn't I get a tiny bit of something back.

...errr...because most people without children never get anything back.....

and if anyone from the Government reads this "Many of us without children don't agree with people having child benefit of any description for ANY children - not just those having more than 2". Our voices dont get heard so much - so it needs to be said now.