Cross Poster Subsidisation

StevieJ

StevieJ wrote: »

Good news, Mac 2 up, just made the put of his life, 2 holes left, all square on the next hole for the Ryder cup.

All over - Europe win.

LilacPixie

No

WooooooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

N1AK

Really2 wrote: »

In reality how many familys earn between £44K and £87K without one being a top rate earner?

I can think of 4 couples in that situation who I or my partner went to Uni with. There are another 3 who would be in that situation (us included) if we had kids.

Last thing I want to do is pretend my sample is representative. I don't however want the 'common wisdom' to be that it's rare unless there is some evidence to back that up.

Really2

No

N1AK wrote: »

I can think of 4 couples in that situation who I or my partner went to Uni with. There are another 3 who would be in that situation (us included) if we had kids.

Last thing I want to do is pretend my sample is representative. I don't however want the 'common wisdom' to be that it's rare unless there is some evidence to back that up.

I don't think it is rare, it's just rarer than those that earn less than £44K joint.

The amount earning over £44K and have a single wage and children will be rare IMHO. (comparable to overall claiments)

FATBALLZ

Am I missing something here, as part of a couple roughly on not far off £60k I fail to see how somebody who pays no more than £350 of tax a month even comes close to subsiding me. Child benefit is a tiny rebate on the tens of thousands of tax me and my partner pay. And quite frankly I'm happy for it to be scrapped, however not this half-@rsed measure where the usual scroungers keep everything and those who pay in far more than they contribute are the only ones worse off. Is this just another in-argument-poll?

Also this is a pretty misleading thing to say...

Generali wrote: »

Should those people be paying taxes to subsidise the desire of rich couples on £60,000 or more like carolt and her OH to have children?

To become rich through income alone you'd have to be earning way more than £60k a year, being rich in today's world is very little to do with what you earn and almost entirely based on inheritance or having been born at the right time to buy certain assets that became much more valuable.

The_White_Horse

Yes

i see child benefit as my right. i pay the tax, i should get some of it back. i am not getting paid a benefit, i am simply getting a tiny fraction of the amount i pay in every month refunded. You could pay me CB ten times over and i would still be paying in rather than taking out.

That is why i feel I should be entitled. now, i will see some disgusting pram face with her chavvy little sprog called Harley or some such !!!!!! having a toy that my own children might have to do without.

I would be all for stopping a universal benefit univerally. but not this, where the people that pay tax get nothing and the scrounging filth continue to grasp all they can from my pocket.

chucknorris

No

carolt wrote: »

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

Carol was referring to Generali.

You know Carol sometimes you have to look at yourself and see if you are the problem. The mere fact that someone of Generali's gentlemanly and very well respected status saw fit to create this thread should tell you something.

silvercar

Gen, you've lost the moral high ground with this thread.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

There are several posters on here who are single, no kids that earn well below £20,000 a year.

Should those people be paying taxes to subsidise the desire of rich couples on £60,000 or more like carolt and her OH to have children?

Then again should they be paying to subsidise kids in Warsaw?

In opposition, Philip Hammond, then the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "With Britain facing a debt crisis and the Government's child poverty strategy in tatters, it beggars belief that [Britain] is continuing to send millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to children who don't even live in this country." Quite so. And what is the Coalition proposing to do about it?
Moreover, Britain might be forced to remove the few residency rules that limit social security payments to EU migrants because the European Commission says they are against Community law in failing to treat all nationals equally. If these restrictions are lifted, the annual cost of benefits could increase by as much as £2.5 billion, cancelling out other welfare savings.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/child-benefit-there-s-plenty-of-welfare-on-offer-to-the-poles-tele-254162cbf038.html?x=0

HOUSE_PRICE_CRASH_GHOULS

No

Absolutely not. It is abhorrent enough that this 'woman' (and I use the term loosely as women are mostly caring and considerate) wants to see families thrown to the wolves in the street without her now expecting others to fund her to drag up her children.