Cross Poster Subsidisation

Generali

No

N1AK wrote: »

Single parents earning well below £20,000 are not subsidising anyone. The net amount they pay to the government will be noticeably less than the amount they receive in services and benefits.

What you are arguing for is an increase in the amount that families earning £60k+ subsidise poorer families by.

I don't need to take a position on this to know your argument, and decision to target it at one person, reflects badly on you.

Read the post you quote from again N1AK old thing. I say single, no kids, not single parents.

Radiantsoul

Yes

I think this is a classic example of how you can influence an opinion poll by the format of the question you ask.

If you were to phrase the question should society support all children regardless of their parents income then you would get a different answer.

LilacPixie

No

Well I have kids, earn a decent income and I don't think the cuts have went far enough. I see no reason why a family with a take home pay of 3K+ a month should need to rely on child benefit, I see it as a budgetting/lifestyle issue rather than a 'need'.

chucky

No

Radiantsoul wrote: »

I think this is a classic example of how you can influence an opinion poll by the format of the question you ask.

that's a terrible thing to do - why would anyone need to do that??

Really2

No

Generali wrote: »

I didn't accuse carolt of being racist. I said I am not racist so all are welcome to post.

Now you know how it all starts.

Generali

No

Radiantsoul wrote: »

I think this is a classic example of how you can influence an opinion poll by the format of the question you ask.

If you were to phrase the question should society support all children regardless of their parents income then you would get a different answer.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2769894

Radiantsoul

Yes

LilacPixie wrote: »

Well I have kids, earn a decent income and I don't think the cuts have went far enough. I see no reason why a family with a take home pay of 3K+ a month should need to rely on child benefit, I see it as a budgetting/lifestyle issue rather than a 'need'.

You might be right in principle, but £44k will be a net income of about £2.5k per month.

I think the fact that the cuts are delayed for a few years is probably sensible too.

StevieJ

LilacPixie wrote: »

Well I have kids, earn a decent income and I don't think the cuts have went far enough. I see no reason why a family with a take home pay of 3K+ a month should need to rely on child benefit, I see it as a budgetting/lifestyle issue rather than a 'need'.

But didn't you say you would still be receiving it on £3k+ a month :eek: I suppose you could always pass it over to Carol

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

I didn't accuse carolt of being racist. I said I am not racist so all are welcome to post.

LOL.

So there was no alterior motive in suggesting you are not a racist, and everyone is allowed to vote.

You just thought you'd mention your not a racist and you have put a poll up.

I can't be bothered getting into this. It's obvious what was meant otherwise why even mention such an absurd thing.

Seems many are enjoying what you are doing though, and I'm in the minority, so I'll shutup and let you get on with it.

Batchy

When conservatives come in, and Lib dems ... the thing that they said they would do, was to reward working and Make it pay.
There should be no situation, where it is currently better to NOT WORK. with all the benefits.

IMO, all benefits should be a LOAN, and when your back into work, your tax code should shange accordingly to reflect the benefit, therefore each individual is paying for their own benefits in the long run so the sooner you get to work, the better. It should be added on just like P11d benefits.

My personal tax bands were frozen this year... due to having to make up the benefits of those who choose not to work or were unable to, when they do, they could also benefit from not using all their personal allowance and earn more than me for that year. WHY??