Cross Poster Subsidisation

StevieJ

Batchy wrote: »

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.

?

Or if you have been out of work for a while you can't afford to go back :eek:

Generali

No

carolt wrote: »

Gosh, my respect for you has just gone down the plughole.

And my respect for you has done the same.

You cry poverty yet you must be in the top 5% of income earning households in the country very easily. You have a pop at me for being a plutocrat while earning considerably more than Mrs Generali and I.

Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

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

I apologise, I did indeed misread your post.

Even a single person earning < £20k isn't likely to be a net contributor to the tax system. I have looked but haven't been able to find a source for a break even point.

Regardless of whether they are, to try and claim that their tax is used for child benefit for the 'wealthy' while the wealthy are paying massively more tax is more than a little disingenuous.

Additionally, it's a strange point to make. A couple of years ago when I was earning that kind of money I doubt my cares went past the general distaste for being asked to subsidise parents (regardless of income).

Generali

No

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Thanks. FWIW, I am genuinely angry with carolt for being such a massive hypocrite.

Sorry about the stupid thing yesterday BTW, it was meant to be a joke hence the Micky Quinn bit. To be fair, people seemed to find it funny.

I just had a thought, you're not Micky Quinn are you? That would be very mean of me if you were.

LilacPixie

No

StevieJ wrote: »

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

Thats what I find bizzare about the 'cut off'. I went part time last year so no longer a higher rate tax payer so despite having an above average household income we will still get child benefit. OH gets a bonus too so take home ranges between 3.2k and 3.9k a month yet we will still qualify. I thought for our circumstances we would lose CB and if we did ( I think they will tweak it to do joint income) then no big deal. Spends would be adjusted and life would go on. I am a bit :eek: at those on a similar income to us spitting the dummy.

torontoboy45

I thought gen's question was tongue-in-cheek until it dawned that he was being serious!

nearly all who post here are motivated by self-interest; why should carol be any different?

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

And my respect for you has done the same.

You cry poverty yet you must be in the top 5% of income earning households in the country very easily. You have a pop at me for being a plutocrat while earning considerably more than Mrs Generali and I.

Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite.

So how much does Carol earn? I thought her husband was quite well paid over 45k but she did some bits of work while staying at home with kids. I must have missed something.

StevieJ

LilacPixie wrote: »

Thats what I find bizzare about the 'cut off'. I went part time last year so no longer a higher rate tax payer so despite having an above average household income we will still get child benefit. OH gets a bonus too so take home ranges between 3.2k and 3.9k a month yet we will still qualify. I thought for our circumstances we would lose CB and if we did ( I think they will tweak it to do joint income) then no big deal. Spends would be adjusted and life would go on. I am a bit :eek: at those on a similar income to us spitting the dummy.

Yes I agree but you must be able to see why people earning less than you, but losing child benefit are disgruntled.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

You cry poverty yet you must be in the top 5% of income earning households in the country very easily.

And thus top 5% of tax paying households.

I doubt anyone thinks that families earning £30k+ need the benefit. What I think a lot of people are bitter about is watching a large chunk of their income go in taxation, and then being told they'll get access to even less of the things that taxation pays for.

Really2

No

StevieJ wrote: »

Yes I agree but you must be able to see why people earning less than you, but losing child benefit are disgruntled.

But is the point they are choosing to earn less? There is nothing stopping the higher paid couple both working also.

If you did it on household income you could then argue 2 working are worse off because of child care, should they then be paid more to keep up with the ones where one stays at home?

It would be never ending, top rate tax is an easy cut off. Benefits should not be fair to all, otherwise why were all the poor not subsidised to earn the same as the top 10%.