MSE News: Higher rate tax payers to lose child benefit

DirectDebacle

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.

Quite right. Benefits should be allocated on a basis of need. As the govt. consider that total benefits received should not exceed avge. income, circa £26k at present, then it would seem reasonable to say that an income of avge. or above should not be entitled to claim any benefits.

As with any arbitary cut off point those close to the margin would either breathe a huge sigh of relief or squeal like stuck pigs. C'est la vie.

Blue22

pennylikespounds wrote: »

Blue we have 4 children and are looking right now as a result of this announcement and the tax credit one that my husband cut his hours from a 50 hr wk to a 3 day 30 hr week so we still qualify for CB. Also it means if I can work longer hours and we still qualify for CB and CTC. Could you do this? Our income should be roughly the same.

Wouldn't have done this if CB had been cut for all but we feel such mugs that a family will still be able to 'earn' 35k gross on benefits that our moral spirit has been dampened.

jlPike's comment a few pages back got me thinking too that those that paid in for a private pension will see no state pension when they come to retire just an increase in N.I Thinking on pulling that too and investing elsewhere.

may not please everyone on this thread though especially those that believe our 4 children were a choice

Hi Penny, I probably should have put more information in my original post to explain that the cut in CB will not affect me directly as mine are all now non dependents (19 to 31) Although even if they had been younger, I would have been unable to work around my Husband as his job was dependent on being available 24/7, as are so many jobs, e.g. police, military, AA men,lorry drivers etc etc.

However, I do feel very strongly that CB should never be means tested and that everyone who has children should at least receive a small financial recognition for the time and money that they put into raising the next generation.

I also find it really sad that admitting to having more than two children or being a stay at home Mum seem almost akin to saying that you are a murderer or suffering with leprosy.

I can totally understand why you and your Hubby are feeling so demoralized at the moment but just hope that 'public opinion' and government policy soon turn to give you the recognition you deserve. Hey and even if it doesn't turn, at least you will always be a godlike creature to your 4 little ones. Keep up the good work

xx

pennylikespounds

sh1305- We have quadruplets , not a choice but it's not like we were gonna drown them like a litter of puppies. Sadly I admit I'm a breeder, not an anti-breeder.

Blue-cheers .
Everyone needs a little help and support at some point and this CB we are (were) relying on just till I could work FT again like I always have done, when they go to school. Now feel like sod that, why both slog our guts out like we currently are doing 66 hrs a week btwn us. We can be almost the same off financially yet time rich if Dh cuts his hours and is here to help me with them . Tax credit/CB top ups and all the extras you qualify for once on CTC all add up to enable us to achieve this.

angelfire

I think the benefits system needs a complete overhaul and instead of giving money they should give vouchers that are only redeemable on food/gas/electricity etc. That would sort the scroungers from those that truly 'need' the help. It would also discourage people (if you can call them that), from reproducing in order to get benefits etc. - f no actual cash was dished out i reckon it'd be a different story.

Literally make it so that you have to go out and actually WORK for money and if you don't, it's just a case of getting vouchers for your essentials.

(a little off topic I know and I apologise!)

Fran

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

...it just gets ridiculous when women breed without any care or responsibility.

Er.... MEN are part of the breeding process too, in fact are more likely to be irresponsible as their bodies are not affected. Women are mostly much more likely to consider the consequences as they physically carry babies.

"Lifestyle choice".

This phrase seems to be popular at the moment. Having children is natural, it's not a "style". All animals breed, it's normal to desire children to keep our species going.

Fran

!!!!!!!!! wrote: »

I think the benefits system needs a complete overhaul and instead of giving money they should give vouchers that are only redeemable on food/gas/electricity etc.

When on benefits or a low income you need to have the choice, week by week, of where the money you have goes as it's such a delicate balance.

bunny999

!!!!!!!!! wrote: »

I think the benefits system needs a complete overhaul and instead of giving money they should give vouchers that are only redeemable on food/gas/electricity etc. That would sort the scroungers from those that truly 'need' the help. It would also discourage people (if you can call them that), from reproducing in order to get benefits etc. - f no actual cash was dished out i reckon it'd be a different story.

Literally make it so that you have to go out and actually WORK for money and if you don't, it's just a case of getting vouchers for your essentials.

(a little off topic I know and I apologise!)

It's a good idea but they'd trade the vouchers for money for booze and fags. Many years ago I worked for the department that gave out school uniform vouchers and we had to stop them being used at Marks and Spencer as the parents would take the uniforms back to get a cash refund.

Blue22

esmerelda98 wrote: »

to suggest that parents are entitled to financial support from those without children is absurd.

May I explain why I feel that all children are entitled to financial support. The taxation and welfare system is all about redistribution of wealth with the underlying principle that there are some stages in life when people require more support than at others. If it was a totally level playing field and nobody needed any additional help we wouldn’t have any personal taxation! Having a child has always been considered one of those times, when parents earning capacity is reduced whilst household costs rise.

In 1909 the British tax system acknowledged that families with children were unable to pay as much tax as those without and gave generous tax allowances for children. With the birth of the Welfare State this support for children was extended to include families on lower/no incomes through Family Allowance. Both these systems chugged along nicely until the 1970s when it was considered unfair that higher rate tax payers gained more from having a child than lower income families so this led to a new universal payment, Child Benefit, giving the same flat rate payment to all children.

In recent years this payment has become something of a stigma, presumably because of the word ‘benefit’ being attached to it. As an analogy, imagine that another flat rate payment, the State Pension, gets renamed ‘Old Persons Benefit’. Soon all you good people claiming it would become known as ‘Benefit Scroungers’ and questions would be asked as to whether you should be claiming ‘benefits’ when you may have another source of income or told you should be getting off your **** and working! This example could work just as well for all other flat rate payments or allowances e.g DLA or Personal Tax Allowance. Suddenly everything becomes means tested and pensioners and disabled people become trapped in the way that families have become trapped by WTC and CTC with no incentive to improve their circumstances.

Thank you if you managed to read through my long rambling but I guess I still haven’t addressed your original point, why should you be supporting other peoples children when you have chosen not to have any. Maybe it would help if you looked at it another way. Your tax is repaying the subsidy your parents received whilst you were growing up and this then gets redistributed to another child.

jlpike

Something like two thirds of the working poulation have no pension provision whatsoever. So when they hit 65 or probably 75 or 85 (when they will be allowed to retire) where will the state pension come from. Who will pay for the NHS? Who will pay for heating allowance or free bus pass.

By the time I retire the average living age will probably be something like 100 which is 35 years of pension (from 65) and there will be twice the number of pensioners by then. This is going to cost a fortune!

All this will be paid for by the next gereration. The government does dot have a magic pot to pull money out off.

So people should think about the effects of making it financially challenging to have kids.

All well and good for the childless couple to say why should I support your kids as long as you hve an excellent private pension and private healthcare because my kids will be paying for this when you and me are retired.

scootw1

Fran wrote: »

When on benefits or a low income you need to have the choice, week by week, of where the money you have goes as it's such a delicate balance.

Problem is that a lot of them will choose to go for a night out rather than pay their bills. Only last night I asked someone "how come you can afford to go out and spending on fruit machines on only £30 a week?" and he said "well, sometimes you just miss your rent or council tax and pay it again". Housing benefits should be paid direct to the landlord which would stop that sort of thing going on