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

Really2

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree it’s ill thought out will you be happy if they make it £44k household income.

I think I know who would not be happy with that.

The reality is no one is going to be happy with a cut off. The next argument would be why should someone one wage and a stay at home parent of £44K get it and why 2 people on a joint income of £44,001 and child care costs don't.

carolt

dopester wrote: »

Yes; something like 80 posts on it or so, when I read it a couple of hours ago.

Ah - you need the one with over 800 posts on it I was reading last night..

Graham_Devon

I've heard David Cameron squirming over the fairness issue, and have also heard a variety of comments from people who will lose their benefits.

One comment really got to me though, and it reminded me as to why I wanted to see the tories back in power.

One women came on the radio and stated that she had 4 children, why should she suffer because her husband earns 62,000 per year. At this point, I was thinking "yes, I'm with you lady, it's not really fair". Unfortunately she then told the listeners that she should be entitiled to more because she has 4 children and is struggling to pay their mortgage. I was starting to lose sympathy. 4 kids were her choice. Mortgage was her choice, and no doubt if they struggling to pay the mortgage on a 62k wage, they have over extended themselves.

She then went on to say that the child trust fund is being cut, plus the pregnancy grant is going, and it's just sheer spite from the government. Presenter asked, and shes pregnant with her fifth.

She seemed to think she had far more of an entitlement because she had more kids. I.e. the way she was putting it, she should be sheltered from the cuts because shes got more kids than her sister who will keep her CB but only has 2 kids.

Really got to me and reminded me exactly why the system was so crazy, and how it fuelled peoples thoughts towards their "entitlements" based on their own free will and choices, rather than what it is, state help.

I still struggle with the fairness issue of having 2 workers earning 40k, 80k household and keeping CB, whereas someone else with one high earner earning 50k loses it. I think that can be cleared up.

But thank god something is being done. That women really whinged too much on behalf of everyone else, and it just reminded me exactly why things should be done.

She wanted cuts. Just she was more important than anyone else, and they shouldn't cut HER benefits. Seemed ok to cut her sisters though.

carolt

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree it’s ill thought out will you be happy if they make it £44k household income.

Happier, in that at least it would be fairer.

Still not happy because

(a) it will have big financial efects for us and be hard to cover, and impossible I am sure for many others nearer the 44K cut-off

(b) I strongly disapprove of the dismantling of one of the cornerstones of the welfare state - this was designed to help children and ensure they got the essentials NOT help parents

(c) because I think it should be tapered, otherwise it is hugely unfair and a huge disincentive to work for those on the boundaries.

But yes, that would be fairer, save more money overall.

I'd rather not see that, rthough, as I think at 44K, families do still need support.

I 'd be happy to see it removed entirely, IF it was replaced with transferable children's tax alowances, say.

I would have favoured either means-testing it at a higher level, say 100K - easy to do with minimal admin costs, or restricting it to children up to the age of 16 or even 13, say, as it is easier for both parents to earn more once the children are old enough to be at home on their own if mum/dad still both at work - maybe 13 a bit young?

FATBALLZ

carolt wrote: »

(b) I strongly disapprove of the dismantling of one of the cornerstones of the welfare state - this was designed to help children and ensure they got the essentials NOT help parents

(c) because I think it should be tapered, otherwise it is hugely unfair and a huge disincentive to work for those on the boundaries.

b - looking at this rationally, is any family with an income £44k+ that doesn't already give the child the essentials really going to do anything differently just because they get a couple of grand child benefit a year?

c - this would cost too much and make the whole thing pointless.

looking on the bright side, now that far fewer people will have a stake in the welfare state it will be easier to cut elsewhere...

Really2

carolt wrote: »

I would have favoured either means-testing it at a higher level, say 100K - easy to do with minimal admin costs, or restricting it to children up to the age of 16 or even 13, say, as it is easier for both parents to earn more once the children are old enough to be at home on their own if mum/dad still both at work - maybe 13 a bit young?

Are my eyes failing, as I am sure I just read you think people earning up to & over £100K should still get benefits?

CloudCuckooLand

Is 'two incomes' versus 'one income' really an issue though? Sounds like a different choice, that's all.

The two income people have higher child care costs. Earn more in total, so pay more tax. Pay the childminder, who pays tax too. Helps Govt coffers.

While the 'one income' partner stays at home, does childminding themselves, earn nothing so gives no tax to Govt, doesn't use a childminder so no tax from there, doesn't do anything to boost the coffers. Doesn't need the child benefit, or they'd be out at work...

Make the choice that suits you.

With costs of childcare pretty much the salary of a person anyway, why go out to work just for CB - be a SAHM and lose CB, but get a better quality of life. Money isn't everything, after all. Work/life balance and all that.

StevieJ

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree it’s ill thought out will you be happy if they make it £44k household income.

No £55k will do, gotta make allowance for that childminder

carolt

FATBALLZ wrote: »

b - looking at this rationally, is any family with an income £44k+ that doesn't already give the child the essentials really going to do anything differently just because they get a couple of grand child benefit a year?

c - this would cost too much and make the whole thing pointless.

looking on the bright side, now that far fewer people will have a stake in the welfare state it will be easier to cut elsewhere...

Make no mistake - this is the whole point.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

carolt wrote: »

Maybe next time they should do better than working their slash-and-burn plans out on the back of an envelope the night before the party conference???

You should have voted Labour then shouldn't you?

What on earth did you expect?

You've spent years off your life running down the last Labour Government on this board and all I can say is that some people don't know when they are lucky!

LOL:p