Child Benefit fiasco: cuts 'unravelling' already...

michaels

Consider 2 families both with two earners receiving 86k pa each, household income 172k.

Suppose they have a child,.
Family A, one earner stops working, household income 86k - no child benefit.
Family B both switch to working half time, household income 86k, full child benefit.

I can not see any difference in terms of 'need' or 'deserve' in these two families - why should one get the benefit and the other not?

If universal benefits are being removed (and I can not see the point in taxing everyone and then giving money back to everyone) then I think the benefit should be scrapped altogether and replaced where necessary with a means tested benefit, I can not see any justification for a benefit that is neither universal nor means tested.

Dirk_Rambo

HarryPowell wrote: »

Between you and me, I am absolutely delighted with her pain, I'm drinking it in. slurp, slurp. :rotfl:

What is even better is that a LOT more people are seeing through her. Delightful.

your a very nasty man harry powel. i thought youd been banned along time ago

Really2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

When I went to collect my children from school, the parents learnt never to stand by the staff room door or else you got crushed in the stampede at 3.30.

My son goes to nursery at the back of a Primary School.
A lot of the teachers must be very thin to squeeze under the roller shutter covering the front door at 5PM.
Also they seem to have all their cars stolen, as the car park is empty also.

MissMoneypenny

StevieJ wrote: »

Shows how pathetic the Tory vote really was then, didn't win even even though the opposition didn't turn up

I live in a marginal seat which Labour had and they got a good pasting in the election as their MP had had his nose well and truly in the expenses trough. I saw him campaigning in the street and called out to him "how are your new windows", but he didn't reply.

chucky

HarryPowell wrote: »

A good while ago carolt was posting one of her signature nasty threads about people on benefits. Basically she feels they are scum.

that's not a very nice way to be... look who's the benefit scrounger now...

karma is such a wonderful thing

what a beach Karma can be...

LilacPixie

Child benefit for 2 kids is £134.80 every 4 weeks. I was actually sad enough to check online banking. so 1752.40 per calender year or £146 per calender month. Thats closer to 5% of take home pay presuming couple with 1 earner who earns marginally over the HR threshold.
If a family will be plunged into the depths of poverty because of a 146 a month loss then the stay at home parent will need to look at obtaining a part time job to supplement family income or lifestyle changes be made if that is the option. It is the equivilent of under 6 hours per week at minimum wage. It is just a matter of fitting around other partners hours/days. Households with incomes in excess of 44k should not get child benefit.

I don't think the CB cuts have went far enough and I fully expect changes to be made before 2013. Next election must be called for 7th May 2015 or earlier doesn't it? When it all hits the fan in April 2013 (which it will) there is not long before election. People have very long memories.

Dirk_Rambo

Aberdeenangarse wrote: »

I think you've got some kind of a serious problem fella. I'd seek professional advice if I were you. :mad:

dont worry. it wont be long b4 hes banned again, harry powels not a very nice chap

vivatifosi

michaels wrote: »

Consider 2 families both with two earners receiving 86k pa each, household income 172k.

Suppose they have a child,.
Family A, one earner stops working, household income 86k - no child benefit.
Family B both switch to working half time, household income 86k, full child benefit.

I can not see any difference in terms of 'need' or 'deserve' in these two families - why should one get the benefit and the other not?

If universal benefits are being removed (and I can not see the point in taxing everyone and then giving money back to everyone) then I think the benefit should be scrapped altogether and replaced where necessary with a means tested benefit, I can not see any justification for a benefit that is neither universal nor means tested.

AIUI, family A, while not being able to claim cb, would be able to claim the partner's tax allowance. I'm not sure how much cb is, but I would have thought in a lot of cases the tax allowance could be more.

The people who this will hit most are working couples where one of the people fall into the 40% band and single parents earning paying over 40% as neither of these would get benefit from that trade-off.

silvercar

michaels wrote: »

Consider 2 families both with two earners receiving 86k pa each, household income 172k.

Suppose they have a child,.
Family A, one earner stops working, household income 86k - no child benefit.
Family B both switch to working half time, household income 86k, full child benefit.

The problem with family B is that, even in these days of equality, for serious career progression one parent is going to have to work full time.

michaels wrote:

I can not see any difference in terms of 'need' or 'deserve' in these two families - why should one get the benefit and the other not?

Always the way that a simplistic approach yields a cut off level and those just below suffer.

Same for the provision of EMA (upto £30 a week for sixth formers). Earn a £1 over the limit and your child is docked £10 a week. So you have the non-earners with their children raking in £30 a week, low earners at £20, some at £10 and anyone with family income over £60k (I think) gets nothing. The rich kids in the common room are the ones from the poorest families.

[Deleted User]

I don't think it's a fiasco. I think this coaltion are trying to think of fair and innovative ways to cut the deficit. To cut the benefit for higher earners seems to be a reasonable thing to do. Yes, we need to support stay at home mums, but at least they are protecting all lower earners.