MSE News: Higher rate tax payers to lose child benefit

PamVegas

I have been following this thread since the announcement on monday and have already made a couple of posts when I am usually a lurker. The majority of the posts seem to be of the idea that those on higher tax threshold niether need or deserve the child benefit. Whilst agreeing with this, we ourselves are a couple with one earner higher and one lower, so will lose our child benefit; I disagree with the way it is being proposed to be calculated. It is entirely unfair that a household with two or perhaps more incomes of upto £44000 will still recieve the benefit, whilst a household with only one earner of over £44000 and a partner either staying at home to look after children and being supported by their partner or on a lower income themselves will not recieve it. I am not opposed to a change in the process of child benefit but it needs to be fair to all.

greent

divastrop wrote: »

I don't think that every higher rate tax payer has worked their rear end off to get where they are- more like mummy and daddy paid for them to go to a good school and uni and they have picked up good contacts along the way.
There seems to be quite allot of time and effort being put into berating those on benefits at the moment, especially in the media which is where I assume you have picked up the old plasma tv myth. Those on benefits with such luxury household items are either a) screwing the system by working on the side ( a minority of claimants), b) dealing drugs, o c) are intellectually challenged enough to get household items from such rip-off merchants as bright house etc who prey on people such as these, or d) have been bought these items as a gift which is not illegal or morally wrong as far as I can see.

:eek:What?? FAR more higher rate tax payers have worked their butts off to get where they are. I know quite a few HR payers and quite a few either have no degres or did them through study whilst working - some self funded, some by employers. And NONE of these went to anything other than a state school and several came from poor backgrounds (and I mean poor in the sense of choice between new shoes or food on the table - so cardboard was put in shoes with holes in)

alchera

misfire wrote: »

Mortgage isn't a choice.

Of course it is! I don't have a mortgage and, if I did, it would be because I CHOSE to buy a house - just as you CHOSE to buy a house! lol...What are you saying - that your mortgage was FORCED on you? That you didn't want to buy a house and someone came along and FORCED you to do so?

misfire wrote: »

we had not choice - apart from stay at the mercy of landlords

And there is your CHOICE!

OMG...take responsibility why don't you. No doubt you are one of these people who also think that having children isn't a choice....

alchera

Badger_Lady wrote: »

However it would be harsh if I got knocked up tomorrow and the Dad wasn't interested: I can comfortably afford to look after myself as a singleton but it all goes balls up when maternity leave starts...

Getting knocked up is avoidable, you know.

alchera

THRIFTY_GIRL wrote: »

Another attack on the middle classes. This is what the real Tories are about. As someone has already mentioned, what about those on benefits who receive more than the working classes?

I have for a long time felt that benefits need to be limited to a maximum, regardless of the number of children. My personal opinion is to cap benefits at 3 children; this would result in the scroungers having fewer children IMO; no more Daily Mail stories about 12 kids. Why don't they take such action? Because it will lose them votes...

How is it fair that someone earning £43k receives the allowance and someone earning £44k does not? The person on £43k is better off....

Talking about simplifying the system, why not combine Child benefit with Child Tax credits? That way the benefit could at least be tapered and there would be no need for a new system. This would also remove the unfairness resulting from whether there is one income earner or two. Savings would be made by getting rid of child benefit altogether, renaming it as an extension to the tax credits system.

I think this scheme will lose more than a few votes. The suggested scheme is too simplified and unfair.

So, according to you, the middle classes procreate more than the other classes, whatever they may be?

It's about time breeders were targeted - the government cannot take any more money off the sick and disabled than they already have (the sick and disabled do not choose to be sick or disabled)

Breeders, on the other hand DO chose to breed, for entirely selfish reasons (and if you disagree, please tell me one unselfish reason that people have children)

I cannot believe that people are posting on the internet that they are "struggling to survive" and are unable to afford to support their wife and 5 kids.....

Would they buy 5 cars? No! Because they can't afford them, Yet they quite obliviously have 5 children. And whine when they have their child benefit taken off them.

If you can't afford to have kids - don't have them.

I and my partner would love to have children and we would make terrific parents, but we choose not to have them because we can't afford it. So many people in our situation just go ahead and have kids because they are utterly selfish...

alchera

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

I agree with that, but everybody is entitiled to ONE mistake, it just gets ridiculous when women breed without any care or responsibility.

lol - so speaks a true misogynist.

alchera

shop-to-drop wrote: »

.

My wish to bring my children up well is in no way selfish either.

Of course it is. Did you say to yourself "Oh I really do not want to have children but, for the sake of humankind, I really should force myself to....Oh, here goes..."?

No. You had children because YOU wanted them.

alchera

julie2710 wrote: »

What a self-righteous point of view. Maybe everyone on the threshold has a different story too! You're right generalisation is ignorant!!! !

May I suggest that you should not have had children then? Had you not done so, you would be much better off financially...From where I stand, I find YOU very self righteous.

alchera

bunny999 wrote: »

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.

I love your use of the word "they"...How judgemental are you?

Indie_Kid

divastrop wrote: »

I don't think that every higher rate tax payer has worked their rear end off to get where they are

Yes, because people can just walk into a job earning £44k per year with no experience whatsoever.

Breeders, on the other hand DO chose to breed, for entirely selfish reasons (and if you disagree, please tell me one unselfish reason that people have children)

Name the selfish reasons? Is it selfish to have a child because you want one?