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

Really2

robpw2 wrote: »

you are paying for their upkeep if they are getting child benefit .. why should poor people who are on nmw jobs work hard to pay rich people to bring up their children
the government is now all about forcing people into work labour started it now the tories will finish it .. if you want more money you get a job simples and if you cannot afford to have kids then don't simples

Don't forget they will still be getting NHS etc while paying no tax.

If you are not working you are withdrawing from the state even if you do not claim any benefits. There are many services that are paid by tax and are free to UK residents not working means someone else is paying for you.
This is not anti "stay at home" just an observation many people forget about.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Don't forget they will still be getting NHS etc while paying no tax.

This is a good point. Currently, receiving the CB entitles you to the NHS (i.e. it pays your NI contributions).

However, on a personal level, as a taxpayer, I'm quite happy to pay for someones healthcare, if it means they can stay at home and raise the children, on the back of their partners wages, as I'm also well aware their partner is (in this case) paying 40% tax, so basically, tax for both of them.

I'd much rather that than have a situation whereby people with children are forced out to work.

I just can't imagine how bad a situation we would have if all kids were put into childcare as the mother and father had to go to work.

It would certainly end up with thousands more opting for a life on benefits.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

T

I'd much rather that than have a situation whereby people with children are forced out to work.
.

I think this is the point GD, someone who's partner earning £44K+ is unlikely to be forced out to work.
I have no problem contributing towards peoples health care. But there is no need for benefits to support a lifestyle choice.
This is not going to make any children starve etc. It is stopping a benefit to the top earning 1.2m households.

It is all about saving money I would rather the £1bn saved by this be able to be spent on healthcare and education.
If it is not cut is an extra £1bn to cut else where or extra tax for all.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

I think this is the point GD, someone who's partner earning £44K+ is unlikely to be forced out to work.
I have no problem contributing towards peoples health care. But there is no need for benefits to support a lifestyle choice.
This is not going to make any children starve etc. It is stopping a benefit to the top earning 1.2m households.

It is all about saving money I would rather the £1bn saved by this be able to be spent on healthcare and education.
If it is not cut is an extra £1bn to cut else where or extra tax for all.

My point isn't the removal of the benefit. I think we all know that.

It's the removal of the benefit for those with one 40% tax payer thats wrong. We all pay the same tax. Therefore, we should all be entitled to the same benefits these taxes go towards paying.

If the enitlement is to be cut, then you either have to cut it for households on over 50k a year for instance. Not for some households, dependant on their circumstances.

They may aswell have said "for anyone who works in the airline business, child benefit is to be cut", this will save 1 billion. Ta.

Why the airline business? No reason. But it would be unfair to do that to the airline business wouldnt it.

ILW

Would there be no compalint if it was cut far all households on over £44k?

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

Would there be no compalint if it was cut far all households on over £44k?

There would be complaints, sure.

But at least it would be fair to all. I highly doubt all this fuss would still be going on if what you said was the case.

silvercar

Families with one working parent are already penalised in that the gross family income hits the higher (and top) tax rates at a lower level than where that income is shared between both parents.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They may aswell have said "for anyone who works in the airline business, child benefit is to be cut", this will save 1 billion. Ta.

Why the airline business? No reason. But it would be unfair to do that to the airline business wouldnt it.

Well it covers all pilots so you are kind of there, but our point is so stupid it hardly requires responce.

They are targeting the top 1.2M earning households, airlines covers people earning minimum wage to pilots.

They have targeted on earning, people earning £44K+ have a secondary earning potential and no doubt they will use that one day (when kids go to school etc)
People earning less than £44K and both work do not have that option.

Is it really that hard to understand, it may not seem equal, but it is understandable. Even ninky has come round to why it holds some sense (and she hates the torys)

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There would be complaints, sure.

But at least it would be fair to all. I highly doubt all this fuss would still be going on if what you said was the case.

"It's not fair" does sound rather like a seven year old. Life ain't fair in millions of ways, why such a fuss about this? It is not going to give many problems to the losers and is a little bonus to the winners.

Really2

silvercar wrote: »

Families with one working parent are already penalised in that the gross family income hits the higher (and top) tax rates at a lower level than where that income is shared between both parents.

Households with no children and 2 earning over £44K each get hit harder. Perhaps they should get some kind of benefits.:)