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

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

Person 3

Born ugly, no woman would ever have a child with him, never got any CB at all. How can that be fair?

Next you'll be saying it's not fair you don't get DLA and carers allowance, though you don't have a disability and don't require a carer.

Come on, trying to have a serious discussion here...can you justify the examples?

silvercar

There is a cut off for free school meals.

There is a cut off for WTC and CTC.

There is a cut off for childcare help.

There is a cut off for EMA.

There are cut offs for student loans and means tested student grants.

All those cut offs apply where you lose at least a chunk of the benefit for earning £1 over the limit. They are all benefits that you only get if you have children, or they go to the children based on the parents income.

Now there is one more - CB.

Its not fair. But life isn't fair and it never has been.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Can you justify two people earning over £100K each getting it???

They won't now, so I don't see how this has any relevance.

Life aint fair, but I would say the single parent could get some other benefits to help & would be more than aware life aint fair.

"Life aint fair?" Is that it? Well maybe they should just stop random people from using the NHS to cut costs, afterall, life aint far.

Maybe they could whack up council tax to random people and say "well tough love, life aint fair".

Maybe they should just raid peoples savings accounts, take all their money. could do it 1 person per postcode. That would make a lot of money for the treasury. When the person who's had their savings accounts stolen has the audacity to say it's not really fair, you could just reply "well see, lifes not fair, now shush".

Come on Really, you are better than this.

Or he could get married again to someone on £46K

Life is full of lovely variables, should we help the ones £78K now to compete the with the father and his new wife on £92K?

Father and his new wife wouldn't get it either, they both earn over the 40% threshold.

Please....can you justify what I said? I'm taking it you can, as you told people to stop f'ing moaning.

You can keep saying over an over it's not fair. But can you justify it?

silvercar

ILW wrote: »

Person 3

Born ugly, no woman would ever have a child with him, never got any CB at all. How can that be fair?

Needs to be rich or famous or both. Or a footballer.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Next you'll be saying it's not fair you don't get DLA and carers allowance, though you don't have a disability and don't require a carer.

Come on, trying to have a serious discussion here...can you justify the examples?

I would jusify the examples on a basis that life isn't always fair and nobody is going to suffer much over this anomaly. The advantage is that it saves some money and is simple to administer. Seems more an issue of jealousy because someone is getting something that you are not.

Graham_Devon

silvercar wrote: »

There is a cut off for free school meals.

There is a cut off for WTC and CTC.

There is a cut off for childcare help.

There is a cut off for EMA.

There are cut offs for student loans and means tested student grants.

All those cut offs apply where you lose at least a chunk of the benefit for earning £1 over the limit. They are all benefits that you only get if you have children, or they go to the children based on the parents income.

Now there is one more - CB.

Its not fair. But life isn't fair and it never has been.

Yes, and all of those are the same cut off's for every family up and down the land. Means tested.

I give up.

If all people can respond with is "lifes not fair" there obviously isn't any way in which they can justify what they are saying.

Edit: The strange thing is, you are against SMI being cut! "lifes not fair" didn't come into the equation then. You wanted people left in their homes at taxpayer expense. Weird.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, and all of those are the same cut off's for every family up and down the land. Means tested.

I give up.

If all people can respond with is "lifes not fair" there obviously isn't any way in which they can justify what they are saying.

i'm interested what you're saying Devon.

i don't do benefits so don't really understand them.

what do you mean?

silvercar

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, and all of those are the same cut off's for every family up and down the land. Means tested.

I give up.

If all people can respond with is "lifes not fair" there obviously isn't any way in which they can justify what they are saying.

They are not. If parents live together it is taken on joint income, if father on £1m a year has left the home it is taken on mothers income and ignores maintenance.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

i'm interested what you're saying Devon.

i don't do benefits so don't really understand them.

what do you mean?

All those benefits listed by silvercar will all have a cut off based on the household income.

CB is being cut not on household income, just whether one person in that household pays 40% tax. Whether thats 1 single parent, or a couple.

So with all the other benefits silvercar listed, every family gets treated the same based on their household income. If its over X amount, they won't be entitled. If it's under, they will be. It's fair, everyone is on a level playing field.

With this CB change, one family could earn £86k, another 45k. The family earning 45k loses their entitlment. The one with £86k keeps their entitlment and receives the benefits.

Graham_Devon

silvercar wrote: »

They are not. If parents live together it is taken on joint income, if father on £1m a year has left the home it is taken on mothers income and ignores maintenance.

That's no longer a family.

Exactly the same would happen with CB now. Could have someone getting £200k a year in maintanance, yet they earn 20k, and they will continue to receive child benefits. Maintenance is always disregarded.

You are only adding to my issues here....ta