Child benefit to be scrapped for higher rate tax payers from 2013

carolt

So you are a hypocrite.

All that child benefit your mother received for you.

How outrageous.

Tell you what - we could get the current batch of children to work up chimneys to pay their way - that would be a fine solution.



As long as you don't have to contribute to it.

The_White_Horse

i think people are being far too simplistic. someone earning 44k up north, with a 14 year old child, living in a house they purchased in 1987 is probably doing ok. However, someone earning 44k in London, with a 2 year old, living in a house they purchased in 2007 is probably not doing ok.

It is too hard to work out the fairest way to administer CB fairly. However, they have probably gone for the least fair of the lot.

Would have made more sense to:

(a) limit it to two kids only

(b) limit it to kids up to a specified age - maybe 7 or 8?

(c) if you have to set a random limit on earnings, it should be household earnings, not one person's earnings. Cut it for households earning 88k between them. whether that be one on 88k or two on 44k or one on 22k and one on 66k.

the reason they did it like this is because middle income "higher" tax payers don't riot. take it away from the grasping filth on the housing estate and there will be riots.

"this ain't fair, how is little Brooklyn Vonn Dutch gonna buy me my fags if his benefits is cut!!! he's only me 9th kid!!!!!"

French_Knickers

carolt wrote: »

So you are a hypocrite.

All that child benefit your mother received for you.

How outrageous.

Tell you what - we could get the current batch of children to work up chimneys to pay their way - that would be a fine solution.



As long as you don't have to contribute to it.

Watch your bloody pressure dear or we'll all be funding your heart surgery too. :cool:

olly300

carolt wrote: »

Well, if that's the case, I'm sure you'll be more than happy to contribute to my thread on what YOU would be prepared to sacrifice to cut the deficit.

As you're not a hypocrite, are you?

I assume you'll be rushing to pay back all that unjustified child benefit your mother received for you when you were a child, too - or is just other people's children that need to suffer?

You are presuming that the poster was brought up in a high earning family.

The point of the cb cuts is that those whose families are perceived as high earning, done very crudely on tax band, aren't entitled to help from the state.

The government is trying to get people of benefit dependency.

olly300

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i think people are being far too simplistic. someone earning 44k up north, with a 14 year old child, living in a house they purchased in 1987 is probably doing ok. However, someone earning 44k in London, with a 2 year old, living in a house they purchased in 2007 is probably not doing ok.

It is too hard to work out the fairest way to administer CB fairly. However, they have probably gone for the least fair of the lot.

Would have made more sense to:

(a) limit it to two kids only

Why? What happens if you have a multiple birth?

The_White_Horse wrote: »

(b) limit it to kids up to a specified age - maybe 7 or 8?

Teenagers cost a lot.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

(c) if you have to set a random limit on earnings, it should be household earnings, not one person's earnings. Cut it for households earning 88k between them. whether that be one on 88k or two on 44k or one on 22k and one on 66k.

Margaret Thatcher ensured individual taxation was brought in for a reason.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the reason they did it like this is because middle income "higher" tax payers don't riot. take it away from the grasping filth on the housing estate and there will be riots.

Those filth on housing estates as you like to call them if they aren't working will be entitled to a whole lot of benefits so cb could easily be rolled into their other payments. Unfortunately this would mean that that those who work hard but are in the basic tax band won't get help at all.

mbga9pgf

olly300 wrote: »

Why? What happens if you have a multiple birth?

Teenagers cost a lot.

Then you are !!!!!! out of luck. Life is like that. Perhaps you could pick a straw and get one adopted? Plenty of families desperate to have the chance to raise a child.

Of course, if you had triplets (1 in 10,000 births) then you could always cut back on the non essentials and switch to asda value as opposed to waitrose. Needs must. People can always get their pipes cut as soon as they ended up with triplets.

Why should people have to pay for adult irresponsibility?

More to the point, why should the coalition continue to hand out cash hand over fist to lower class people that are going to vote Labour anyway? That doesnt make much political sense to me when we are supposed to be cutting the deficit.

Teenagers cost a lot. Maybe so. Well, perhaps then , if people cant be trusted to budget for the future, perhaps they shouldnt be thinking of having children?

EllaKeat

carolt wrote: »

So you are a hypocrite.

All that child benefit your mother received for you.

How outrageous.

Tell you what - we could get the current batch of children to work up chimneys to pay their way - that would be a fine solution.



As long as you don't have to contribute to it.

Carol - quit the hysteria, it's ridiculous! Things change, sometimes to our benefit, sometimes against. My sons had to pay to go to University, my generation didn't. It ticked me off, but I accepted that there are finite resources and didn't jump up and down complaining. Oh, and following your logic, can I please claim retrospectively: child tax credits, working tax credits etc? If people are getting them today, I want them for the eighteen years I spent scrimping and saving.
See? it doesn't make sense! Circumstances change, we just have to adapt.

The_White_Horse

olly300 wrote: »

Why? What happens if you have a multiple birth?.

You get it for the first two. Simple.

olly300 wrote: »

Teenagers cost a lot.

Once kids are properly in full time school both parents can go back to work full time. If there is only one parent, then that is unfortunate for them. Maybe CB could be paid slightly longer to a full time working single parent.

olly300 wrote: »

Margaret Thatcher ensured individual taxation was brought in for a reason.

What reason? Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. If you think it fair that one earner on 44k means no CB for that household but households with two earners on 43.9k each get it, then you are a fool.

olly300 wrote: »

Those filth on housing estates as you like to call them if they aren't working will be entitled to a whole lot of benefits so cb could easily be rolled into their other payments. Unfortunately this would mean that that those who work hard but are in the basic tax band won't get help at all.

Hopefully they will have their benefits capped at the (already much to high) 500 per week.

*Kat*

spaceboy wrote: »

Then you didnt really pay attention...

Probably not. However, I did specify that in my first post.

torontoboy45

OK, I'll be honest. I work. OH works. neither of us pays HRT. for the first 5yrs of child-rearing CB was useful. beyond that, it was welcome but not necessary.

in the dim and murky past it wasn't a benefit but a tax break on the father's earnings. it became a benefit payable to the mother only, as it became clear that the money was being used to part-fund dad's smoking/gambling/drinking habit.

I agree with other posts re ending of universality but not with the lack of proportion; it seems to be following the contorted logic of the poll tax.

the solution is obvious but it should come with this caveat: the driving force behind this proposal is cost savings to assist reduction of deficit. when the deficit becomes truly manageable the benefit should be restored. or it simply becomes a permanent tax hike!