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

French_Knickers

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.

Quite right. We live on an over populated island with barely enough resources as it is so why do we need this benefit at all? Why are we actively encouraging people to have kids? Its antiquated and not needed.

As has been said, those who need means tested benefits could simply have a higher allowance to take the number of children they have into account.

I thought the tories wanted to make it cheaper and simpler to implement benefits???

olly300

The_White_Horse wrote: »

You get it for the first two. Simple.

Completely unfair because while you can plan on having two children you can't plan on giving birth to 3 or more at once.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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.

So you made an exception already.

Should point out to you when children are in full-time school until they are in secondary school it's not always safe to leave the child on their own after school until you come back from work.

Most areas don't have enough after-school childcare provision for under 11s.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

What reason?

One of the reasons was that some men used it to control their wife working outside the home. If they didn't believe their wife should work then they could stop her. I actually know a family like that and they would be respectable in your eyes.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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.

I don't think it's fair but then I don't want my taxes wasted with more means testing for people. Remember this is just the start of the announcements about spending cuts.

movilogo

This will end up driving more people towards divorce. The rule is just ridiculous unless it is based on combined household income.

wherediditallgothen

movilogo wrote: »

This will end up driving more people towards divorce. The rule is just ridiculous unless it is based on combined household income.

If they'll divorce over that then i think they have bigger problems than child benefit.

The_White_Horse

i just hate paying all the tax, and getting zero in return, whilst a load of scum keep getting it.

i would be happy if it was scrapped altogether. that would be fairer.

or make it a tax rebate. that way, workers can claim back some tax and layabouts get nothing.

silvercar

Completely unfair because while you can plan on having two children you can't plan on giving birth to 3 or more at once.

Multiple births are a very small proportion of births and even then half the twins born will be the first offspring of a family which will just mean shutting the gate early.

Don't think it sensible to design our whole child benefit policy on the basis of subsequent multiple births.

*Kat*

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

(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!!!!!"

Wow. You know very little about housing estates dont you? "filth"? Not everyone on housing estates is how you describe them. Some are single parents getting no help from their scummy ex-husbands and find themselves trapped in this situation. Erse. :money:

FATBALLZ

What's really disappointing is that while this is a step in the right direction, nothing has been done to address to obvious social problems caused by making it profitable to have an unending stream of kids. If they'd at least stopped all new claims for the benefit for people who already have at least 2 kids it would have done far more good.

michaels

Sorry, haven't read every page but I did think the impact on house prices needs to be looked at carefully.

Of late the 'family' (3 bed+) part of the market seems to have been the strongest - reduce family incomes by a gross 3/4k (which this will do for a typical 2/3 kids family) and suddenly prices look a lot less affordable. (Note this argument probably makes more sense in London/SE than the rest of the country).

michaels

This is a first, I have actually found myself agreeing with most of one of your posts and giving it a thanks...

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i would be happy if it was scrapped altogether. that would be fairer.

or make it a tax rebate. that way, workers can claim back some tax and layabouts get nothing.