Should child benefit be means tested?

David_Harrison_2

grumpyeggman wrote:

howzabout,
public school=no child benefit.state school=get child benefit.

higher rate tax payers have plenty of tax avoidance schemes,enough to keep them happy you would think.
there looking pretty good on it anyway!!!

I send my kids to public school because I want the best possible education for them. If the state would provide that, they would go to a state school, but it doesn't. My wife and I have to work incredibly hard and long hours, and hence pay large amounts of tax, to be able to afford this for our children. We have chosen not to smoke, have holidays in the sun, flashy jewelery, new cars, and all the latest gizmos and gadgets, for the sake of our kids. When they finally leave school we will have built up siginificant debts, which will take years to pay off, but we consider it worth it to give them the best possible chance in life. Why should we not be entitled to child benefit, when someone who has chosen never to do a days work in their life, takes no responsibility for the behaviour or education of their child, and contributes absolutely nothing to society can get this and countless other "benefits".

There is no encouragement for people to work hard in this country. If someone does a good job and earns his own living he is robbed by the government and the money handed over to people who cannot be bothered to get off their a@@e.

There are very few people in this country who could not be involved in some kind of gainfull employment. There are very many who are too lazy and get away with it. There are a small number who need financial support from the rest of society and I am happy to contribute to that.

I like this web site because it is mostly populated by people who are getting up and doing something about their financial circumstances. Unfortunately there are also a few moaners who want to point the finger and blame everyone else for the situation they fnd themselves in. Well, whenever you point the finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you.


You talk about "higher rate tax earners" as if they are some sort of parasite, but the fact is, some of us who pay tax at a higher rate probably have less cash in our pocket to spend than some people living entirely on handouts. We certain have a lot less free time. I'm glad you think I'm looking pretty good on it. Personally, I feel absolutely knackered!

P.S. Do let me in on some of these tax avoidance schemes. It would be nice not to be working the first eight months of the year just to let Gordon Brown hand the money over to his big-business cronies.

krisskross

I think child benefit should be paid for a maximum of 2 children. If you want more and can afford to support them that is absolutely fine.

All this talk of anyone earning over £30,000 not needing child benefit is laughable. That person would probably be paying over £7000 of his salary in deductions leaving him about £440 a week. Housing costs will take a huge chunk especially if home is in the south east. The person on £30,000 a year sole salary is almost certainly struggling if there is a wife, children and mortgage to support.

j-baby-scotland

Maybe we should all thank our lucky stars....


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/08/05/wchin05.xml

Officials said that, as part of the drive to meet the quota, doctors had been ordered to sterilise women as soon as they gave birth after officially approved pregnancies.

The drive to perform 20,000 abortions and sterilisations in six months in a county with a population of fewer than one million represents a heavy assault on the women of child-bearing age in its population.

Money saving expert wanabees' seem lacking in certain areas, intellectually, if you ask me.

joegina

Of course not. Imagine the cost of doing so! PC madness. Johnny

josie

krisskross wrote:

I think child benefit should be paid for a maximum of 2 children. If you want more and can afford to support them that is absolutely fine.

All this talk of anyone earning over £30,000 not needing child benefit is laughable. That person would probably be paying over £7000 of his salary in deductions leaving him about £440 a week. Housing costs will take a huge chunk especially if home is in the south east. The person on £30,000 a year sole salary is almost certainly struggling if there is a wife, children and mortgage to support.

Well said krisskross! How about a fine for people who have more than 2 kids and contribute to the overpopulation in this world?

Stompa

josie wrote:

Well said krisskross! How about a fine for people who have more than 2 kids and contribute to the overpopulation in this world?

I seem to recall the policy in China at one time (perhaps it's still the case?) was that each couple was allowed one child. If they had any more then they would suffer increasing tax penalties - the more children the bigger the penalties.

astonsmummy

but does this counrty not need more children to be born otherwise in yeasr to come it will be populated by mainly adults

Stompa

astonsmummy wrote:

but does this counrty not need more children to be born otherwise in yeasr to come it will be populated by mainly adults

Yes, but having more children is not the only solution. If at any time in the future we need to increase the adult population, then I'm sure there would be no shortage of adults from overseas who would be only too happy to come.

kennyjosiah

I dont think child benefit should be means tested - just because you earn more doesnt necessarily mean you have a large disposable income, if anything middle income families are (will be) probably the most hard hit - it would just be the start of the government abolishing it completely in stages.

As for all these people who moan about anyone having more than two children, its ridiculous babies make the world go round we have an ever-decreasing birth-rate - does the government not make excuses for the ever-growing large immigrant population that statistics show that we need a new influx of people to keep the country going in years to come ! perhaps if we weren't made to feel like a pariah on society if you shamelessly have more than two kids!

grumpyeggman

sorry to anyone i've upset.but just to repeat myself...

the question for me is...does a family who can afford circa £15000 a year to send a child to public school (such is the fees at the public school where i work).
that has the cars,the holidays and the lifestyle that go along with serious opulence really need a state handout of £17.25 a week for that child?

please don't think i'm having a go at anybody.
lots of us work hard,from all sorts of backgrounds,doing all sorts of work for all sorts of monetry reward.

i've no idea where any cut off points or sliding scale could be introduced.
i think we should be thinking about the very well off old money types.