MSE News: Higher rate tax payers to lose child benefit

esmerelda98

shop-to-drop wrote: »

Children certainly are a 'lifestyle' choice to families that just miss out on top up benefits. Each extra child makes a huge negative impact financially and will do for the next 18 years. Child benefits just helped a tad and were a recognition of the huge impact on finances that the child is. The sacrifices aren't just financial either our lives are completely orientated around the children. We do very little for our own wellbeing. The last few days have taught me much including how disrespected we are for having children by so many of the childless.

My wish to bring my children up well is in no way selfish either. I have always had it in mind that I want them to be good citizens and grow up as useful members of society. Paying taxes, and having useful roles in society and eventually to be able to provide the next generation after that. It surprises me that this isn't the general view and shocked me that someone in a caring profession boasts that their career choice was a purely financial, selfish one.

You misunderstand. I didn't decide to pursue my occupation for financial reasons. If money was important to me I would have been looking to work in the City, or I would have trained as a lawyer. However, my career choice was selfish. I looked at my talents and especially my interests in deciding on a career choice. I chose a respected career. That was much more important to me than money. To work in a respected field that interests and challenges me is to my benefit. I didn't consider where I could do the most good in choosing my profession. If I had I might have applied to a charity tackling poverty here or abroad. I think it is pompous of a person in a caring profession, or any other profession, to suggest that their career choice was made primarily for other people's benefit.

hiney777

to many people are to quick to judge everyone else.
cb means something different to each individual family. If you save it or spend it on food clothes or anything else it is up to them.
I'm sure some on benefits who have been moaning about better off families getting cb buy the odd beer or wine occasional takeaway,maybe a holiday, run a car.
I dont hear 'better off' people asking people on benefits to downsize to a bike or never drink or not to treat themselves.
but you get a lot of that going the other way. 'move to a smaller house', 'get rid of a car'.
I will be loosing cb which we do use, but I've got 2/3 years to sort this out so it will not be a problem
if anyone can alter there pay to kept cb then good luck to them and i hope that it does change to help higher earning single parents.

esmerelda98

shop-to-drop wrote: »

Children certainly are a 'lifestyle' choice to families that just miss out on top up benefits. Each extra child makes a huge negative impact financially and will do for the next 18 years. Child benefits just helped a tad and were a recognition of the huge impact on finances that the child is. The sacrifices aren't just financial either our lives are completely orientated around the children. We do very little for our own wellbeing. The last few days have taught me much including how disrespected we are for having children by so many of the childless.

My wish to bring my children up well is in no way selfish either. I have always had it in mind that I want them to be good citizens and grow up as useful members of society. Paying taxes, and having useful roles in society and eventually to be able to provide the next generation after that. It surprises me that this isn't the general view and shocked me that someone in a caring profession boasts that their career choice was a purely financial, selfish one.

I don't know why it is deemed 'disrespectful' to point out that people have children for their own enjoyment. To enhance their own lives. I believe it is so arrogant to suggest otherwise. Really, who has children to enhance the world? Who can be so sure that the fruit of their loins will leave a unique lasting positive impression on the world, rather than be a terrible strain on others? Therefore to suggest that parents are entitled to financial support from those without children is absurd. It happens primarily for reasons of administration, not because of an entitlement.

shop-to-drop

esmerelda98 wrote: »

I don't know why it is deemed 'disrespectful' to point out that people have children for their own enjoyment. To enhance their own lives. I believe it is so arrogant to suggest otherwise. Really, who has children to enhance the world? Who can be so sure that the fruit of their loins will leave a unique lasting positive impression on the world, rather than be a terrible strain on others? Therefore to suggest that parents are entitled to financial support from those without children is absurd. It happens primarily for reasons of administration, not because of an entitlement.

Think you have misunderstood too. You need to open your mind to other peoples views and circumstances.

esmerelda98

shop-to-drop wrote: »

Think you have misunderstood too. You need to open your mind to other peoples views and circumstances.

Please explain how I have misunderstood, I'm not quite getting it. Can I just point out that I'm all for a society in which we support each other (not necessarily financially), but the prevalent culture and language of entitlement really infuriates me.

hiney777

esmerelda98 wrote: »

I don't know why it is deemed 'disrespectful' to point out that people have children for their own enjoyment. To enhance their own lives. I believe it is so arrogant to suggest otherwise. Really, who has children to enhance the world? Who can be so sure that the fruit of their loins will leave a unique lasting positive impression on the world, rather than be a terrible strain on others? Therefore to suggest that parents are entitled to financial support from those without children is absurd. It happens primarily for reasons of administration, not because of an entitlement.

Does this mean you are against giving financial help to disabled families because you dont have a disabled child.
The list could be a long one until you decide who you think is worthy of support

Dorastar

Well now I am totally befuddled as they also look set to make me pay more for my pension, work longer, get less and change my contract from final salary to something else. So now if my pay stays the same (they have already frozen it for 3 years), then they take more pension money off me to pay for the baby boomers, then I will earn less and may keep my CB. Or then again I might go for promotion (although work can't afford to send me on the qualifying course and I can't afford it either as we have just been told to anticipate a £70,000 - 100,000 cut in our school budget - they did mention ringfencing education but many of you might not know that was a lie!) So although will definitely be much worse off I might keep my CB - what stupid times we live in.

Oh and there is always the possibility of redundancy - which ironically the school would have to fund (doh!)

What REALLY worries me is that before they came to power I had a lengthy discussion about what I thought lay ahead with dh and I predicted everything 100% right so far - has David Cameron got my house tapped:eek:

Am off to waste this months CB on booze to make life make more sense

Andy_Davies

looby38 wrote: »

The way forward is to increase income tax for the rich and by the rich I mean those who earnings are much higher than 44K. That way the attack is across the board and not directed at those with families who lets face it need this money more than others at a time of financial uncertainty.

What do you hope to achieve by taxing the rich more?

The rich are mobile, they can choose where they want to live and work, and so who's country they pay taxes in.

From memory the 50% tax band hasn't really made much extra cash, for starters there aren't that many really rich people, or rather those with large taxable incomes.

The other point worth making, is why should the rich pay more, why shouldn't everyone make savings?

Andy

imanuelae

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

I sorry but I totally agree with esmerelda98 and I have brought up 3 children who are all adults now with children of their own. If you can't afford them do not breed.

Many people who have kids have considered it, waited till they were in a stable relationship etc Sad as it is almost 50% of marriages end in divorce it doesn't always last forever. So do we not have kids cos we may be a single parent later in life, or should we hook-up with a new man as soon the ink dries on the divorce papers? In other word sh*t happens. All I'm saying is that one size does not fit all and that's why we need proper and fair means testing!

pincer23

pjread- 20k with more disposable income? why not do the same