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

woody01

No..it should NOT be means tested......its hould be ABOLISHED!
Why should i work harder and earn more to support others?

Another thing is that if you are responsible enough to have a child, you should be responsible enought actually pay for it's upbringing yourself.

I am hoping to start a family in the next few years. Our household income is £42k which probably sounds like a lot but we have a £500 per month mortgage to pay on a 2 bedroom flat - a lot of people have much smaller mortgages on bigger properties so I hope these kinds of outgoings would be accounted for.

£500 a month on a mortgage is tiny, especially on a salary of £40K+
You have £1500+ per month left over and still want more from the state.
Do you not think it's irresponsible that you are thinking of starting a family, but relying on a state handout to feed and clothe it?

Why should i pay £1200+ per month in income tax, and it goes to fund a family you may have that you cannot afford?

Have a family = Pay for it yourself

woody01

Thumper7 wrote: »

Here's a thought. For everyone family that has been claiming CB and genuinely doesn't need it and keeps it to pay mortgages, savings etc. and who claims it cos they are "entitled".

If these people hadn't claimed it the cost of CB to the taxpayers would be so much less and people who are borderline may not be in a position whereby they may now lose it.

If your circumstances change and you now need it of course claim.

So because i am a high earner, i should not get it, yet someone that isn't should?
Remember who is putting the biggest share into the 'benefits' pool!
If anything i should be more entitled...not less.

woody01

Rainmaker_uk wrote: »

Personally it annoys me that the only state benefit that my family is entiltled to might be taken away. I am a high rate tax payer and put much in to the pot for everyone else which is OK but I am sick of being the target for every new tax rise...

Please just leave me this one benefit - it's not a lot considering how much I put in to the pot year after year.

It confounds me why we reward people who cannot afford to have loads of children to fund them? Rather than make it means tested I agree that it should be limited to two children maximum.

Absolutely!
Unfortunately, the people that are 'relying' on it, forget where the money came from in the first place.
People like US!

Indie_Kid

woody01 wrote: »

So because i am a high earner, i should not get it, yet someone that isn't should?

Childless people are high earners too. Why shouldn't they get anything back?

woody01

sh1305 wrote: »

Childless people are high earners too. Why shouldn't they get anything back?

Once again, i haven't said they shouldn't.

starsandmoon

woody01 wrote: »

No..it should NOT be means tested......its hould be ABOLISHED!
Why should i work harder and earn more to support others?

Another thing is that if you are responsible enough to have a child, you should be responsible enought actually pay for it's upbringing yourself.


£500 a month on a mortgage is tiny, especially on a salary of £40K+
You have £1500+ per month left over and still want more from the state.
Do you not think it's irresponsible that you are thinking of starting a family, but relying on a state handout to feed and clothe it?

Why should i pay £1200+ per month in income tax, and it goes to fund a family you may have that you cannot afford?

Have a family = Pay for it yourself

There are people who have children with no or little thought on how they will afford to rear them but not all parents are like this. Should a widow not be supported then?

You come across as someone who cannot have children and is very bitter towards anyone who can.

woody01

starsandmoon wrote: »

There are people who have children with no or little thought on how they will afford to rear them but not all parents are like this. Should a widow not be supported then?

You come across as someone who cannot have children and is very bitter towards anyone who can.

Well that shows how narrow minded and wrong you actually are then.
I have 2 children, but do not feel the need to scrounge from the state in order to support them. We have the CB because i want to get something back i am putting in, and not have it all go to people that contribute little or nothing.

Being a widow is not the argument here. That case would not have bought the hardship upon themselves and i am all in favour of aiding genuine hardship.
So....your argument is as weak as your psychological profiling.

You come across as someone that has children and living off several examples of the welfare state.
Whether you are or not, i don't really care who you are or what you do (probably one of those 'Tax Credit' drainers than skim £100+ a week). What i do care about is paying for any person family upbringing.

supa-girl

woody01 wrote: »

I have 2 children, but do not feel the need to scrounge from the state in order to support them. We have the CB because i want to get something back i am putting in, and not have it all go to people that contribute little or nothing.

What i do care about is paying for any person family upbringing.

Says it all really! So, if people who claim a benefit they genuinely need are scroungers according to you, but you claiming a benefit you admit you don't need is ok? Double standards perhaps....

I used to have an ivory tower like yours, but then my circumstances changed and I got a reality check. But perhaps it's ok for me to be a scrounger, given that DP and I were high earners in the past so we have already paid in??? Why do so many people think like that? Taxes are for the greater good, not a bank account.

I don't disagree that the welfare system in this country needs an overhaul and too many people are dependent on it BUT that doesn't mean it's ok to tar everyone with the same brush. I hope you never have the misfortune of falling off that high horse of yours and find yourself down here with us "scroungers"

SG

money_saving_diva

Claiming cb for me isn't just about the money. I am a sahm and as cb is paid to me the years I claim cb while looking after my children are counted towards my ni contributions and therefore help when I come to claim a state pension (if there is such a thing by then!) I think it is great that the government encourage mothers to stay at home with their children in this way. I would be upset if that stopped. We could manage without the money but as someone said earlier cb puts your children 'into the system' and onto 'government records' etc.
I think cb would get into a mess if it was means tested. It would also cost a lot to sort out!! I have only ever rang tax credit line twice and I always wonder what that must cost to run etc!!!

starsandmoon

woody01 wrote: »

Well that shows how narrow minded and wrong you actually are then.
I have 2 children, but do not feel the need to scrounge from the state in order to support them. We have the CB because i want to get something back i am putting in, and not have it all go to people that contribute little or nothing.

Being a widow is not the argument here. That case would not have bought the hardship upon themselves and i am all in favour of aiding genuine hardship.
So....your argument is as weak as your psychological profiling.

You come across as someone that has children and living off several examples of the welfare state.
Whether you are or not, i don't really care who you are or what you do (probably one of those 'Tax Credit' drainers than skim £100+ a week). What i do care about is paying for any person family upbringing.

Oo rattled your cage havnt I? If you dont care who Iam why did you look at my profile?

Lets hope you always have a job and your health and never have to accept any benefits.

You dont know anything about me. How do you know I even have children?

If you give me anymore abuse I would say you care about who Iam a lot.

Have a nice day
xxx