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

carolt

GeneHunt wrote: »

Carp. AD and GB would never have done anything as dumb as this!

You forget the 10p tax rate...

GeneHunt_2

When I was upset that Ed had won the Leadership election someone on here posted that it wouldn't matter in the long run, as after a couple of years of the Tories voters would vote for a monkey as an alternative....
.... I'm starting to think that poster was right.:D

Alan_Cross

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To all labour party fanatacists...

You have been given a gift. Just take it and enjoy it. Don't ruin it by taking it far to far!!!

Labour would have done exactly the same. They would have faced the same choices, regardless of what they say in opposition, to other party fanatacists, or at elections.

If labour can lie about a war, I'm sure they won't have an issue with reverting what they said they would od on a few tax cuts. They would have cut just as deep....just as the lib dems have found out now they are getting a go in the driving seat in some respects. Everything they promised is out of the window. Same !!!!!!, differnt party.

I suppose it's only a closet Tory gusher who has the lack of education to put out 'fanatacist'.

Your 'argument' is a load of !!!!!!!!.

Labour would have done things more slowly, not deliberately targeted ordinary people, closed the spending gap by using taxation more than 'cuts, cuts, cuts' and many other matters. This is documented and in the public domain.

Just because your precious cobblition is coming up against the gaping holes in its own logic, don't go thrashing around and making out that Labour would be committing the same errors.

The public, having been fooled once by these self-serving Libdem self-aggrandisers, won't be giving them another shot.

Engage brain before opening mouth.

StevieJ

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Now that I've stopped laughing at CarolT....

Many people who have kids might have to seriously consider turning down a pay rise as they approach the higher rate tax band - it would now have to be a fairly hefty pay rise to make it worthwhile, taking into account the loss of child benefit and the higher rate tax.

Have you never heard of pension scheme contributions

StevieJ

carolt wrote: »

You forget the 10p tax rate...

You mean they shouldn't have brought it in in the first place?

carolt

GeneHunt wrote: »

By the way - I did notice on the 10 o'clock news that all the men thought it was a great idea and all the women thought it was awful!

Just an observation.

Very interesting.

Certainly tallies with my observations in internet-land.

I suspect it reflects the fact that child benefit is usually paid to the mother - men, even if their wife receives it, are probably largely unaware of it or what part it plays in family finances.

It was initially given to the mother so that, even in families where the mother didn't work or earned v little, she would have a little money coming in, enough to cover the basic essentials for herself and her children, a real necessity for those many women, even somtimes those with wealthy partners, who had no control over the family finances and had to rely on the husband doling them out some of 'his' money to be able to afford the necessities.

What those women will do now I have no idea.

Graham_Devon

Alan_Cross wrote: »

I suppose it's only a closet Tory gusher who has the lack of education to put out 'fanatacist'.

Your 'argument' is a load of !!!!!!!!.

Thank you. Nice to see another labour party follower who can respond without swearing

Closet tory gusher?

I voted Lib dems, though have quite openly said I was happy for tories to get in. I wanted to vote for change though, and that's what I got.

As a tory gusher, I'm also saying this CB thing is a massive blunder, think it's unfair. Hardly backing up the tory party there am I?

Ok, I spose I am. Do I have to call the tory party cabinet special pet names for my disagreement with what they have done, to count?

I apologise. I'll try again..

I don't think it's fair that Camertoff and his Poodle Peorgy Os-thorn has done what they have done. They could have done it better. Toff bar stewards.

Is that better?

Alan_Cross wrote: »

This is documented and in the public domain.
.

Wow, really? Must be true then. From what I recall, it was what wasn't published and in the public domain that was what usually happened.

Can't you remember? They had the police round that tory blokes house and had him arrested uynder the terrorism act to try and hide such stuff

GeneHunt_2

carolt wrote: »

Very interesting.

Certainly tallies with my observations in internet-land.

I suspect it reflects the fact that child benefit is usually paid to the mother - men, even if their wife receives it, are probably largely unaware of it or what part it plays in family finances.

It was initially given to the mother so that, even in families where the mother didn't work or earned v little, she would have a little money coming in, enough to cover the basic essentials for herself and her children, a real necessity for those many women, even somtimes those with wealthy partners, who had no control over the family finances and had to rely on the husband doling them out some of 'his' money to be able to afford the necessities.

What those women will do now I have no idea.

For 3 kids I guess it's worth £2100 a year - over 16 years £33,500ish net of tax?!

Good old baby boomers always happy to kick the ladder away from the next generation!

And good old men always happy to take from women?! And women will just stand around and take it!

carolt

BTW, this is the thread I was referring to dopester - now up to nearly 900 posts - though there are, understandably, several other threads on the same topic.

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1054518-So-child-benefit-to-go-for-higher-rate-taxpayers/AllOnOnePage

System

I find it ridiculous that a family taking in £87998 a year can claim CB but a family earning £44000 can't, takes a special kind of !!!!!!!! to come up with that.