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

GeneHunt_2

Joeskeppi wrote: »

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.

Yes - you can tell that George Osbourne donated all the processing power of his one brain cell to come up with this beauty!

Alan_Cross

I can tell you now what is going to happen.

Having committed yet another faux pas - but this time one which hits their own supporters - the Tories will find some reason to put this latest Osborne gaffe into a 'review committee' such that, on some future, 'good day to bring out bad news', a quiet little announcement will be made to the effect that it is either dropped or that total household income will be used to assess matters.

The same consideration will not, of course, be afforded to the parents and children of ordinary people in, for example, the repair or maintenance of their schools.

This is the kind of government which some here support.

MissMoneypenny

People want welfare cuts, just so long as they still get their welfare payments.

Everyone is having a protest about their particular welfare payment being cut.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2765382

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2729813

Did I read that Cameron said that the only welfare payment that is ring fenced, is pensions? Expect lots of more protests from welfare recipients, as more cuts come in.

Alan_Cross

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Closet tory gusher?

I was happy for tories to get in.


Is that better?

Yep, much better...

... and I've edited it to show what really matters in your thinking...

FATBALLZ

carolt wrote: »

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.

I am the father and CB benefit (one child) is paid to me, I know exactly what effect it has on the family finances - it increases our disposable income by 4-5%. It really isn't the be all and end all.

carolt wrote: »

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.

Since it can be paid to the father already this change make no difference on this front.

Graham_Devon

Alan_Cross wrote: »

I can tell you now what is going to happen.

Having committed yet another faux pas - but this time one which hits their own supporters - the Tories will find some reason to put this latest Osborne gaffe into a 'review committee' such that, on some future, 'good day to bring out bad news', a quiet little announcement will be made to the effect that it is either dropped or that total household income will be used to assess matters.

The same consideration will not, of course, be afforded to the parents and children of ordinary people in, for example, the repair or maintenance of their schools.

This is the kind of government which some here support.

Engage brain before opening mouth, remember?

Labour were well known for waiting to release bad news on a day other news would cover the headlines. They even employed people to do this!

Oh, I can't be bothered trying to burst someones bubble...Carry on Alan.

Graham_Devon

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Yep, much better...

... and I've edited it to show what really matters in your thinking...

You mean you couldn't argue with what was said, so have decided to delete my words, and make up your own little labour fanatacist version of what I said by rearranging said words, and therefore, you can win that little argument and pat yourself on the back for your efforts, while ignoring everything I said.

Well done you. Bravo.

Alan_Cross

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Engage brain before opening mouth, remember?

Labour were well known for waiting to release bad news on a day other news would cover the headlines. They even employed people to do this!

Oh, I can't be bothered trying to burst someones bubble...Carry on Alan.

All governments do. Where did I say Labour were any different?

You are (deliberately, as usual) not addressing the major point when you have logical difficulty with it.

Hauptmann

As a 'moderate' Tory supporter my biggest reservations were always about 'Boy' George. Many in the party (including Ken Clarke) didn't feel he was up to the job and I think they've been proved correct. They have walked into a massive elephant trap with this CB fiasco and it doesn't bode well for any future cuts. I am really astonished at how badly thought through this is.

SingleSue

carolt wrote: »

Certainly.

Or working at all, if they currently have children and pay rent.

Coalitions maximum benefits package = 26K.

Someone earning 44K after tax - take home of £32,270.40.

So that's 6K a year benefit for a full week's work. Or actually less, once you factor in all the non-financial benefits you'd get if still on benefits - free school meals, free prescriptions, free dental and eye care, etc Uniform grants? Reduced cost or free children's activities? (Don't know if they're universal - certainly widespread round here.)

Plus you have to factor in transport costs to work, work clothes and any childcare costs.

Oooh look - not much left of the £500/month - for example - my OH's transport bill to work is c £250/month - not at all unusual in commuterland...

So you can do a full year's work, and be - ooh, maybe £100 a month better off.

Big incentive to work. Not.

Uniform grants and reduced or free child activities are not universal.....we don't have them here. If I want my child to do an activity, I have to pay for it like everyone else, for clothing my child for school, I have to pay exactly the same as someone earning 100k a year (not a private school, just a normal state High school). The same for school trips, no free or subsidised trips, I am expected to pay like any other parent and if I don't, then the children do not go on them (perfectly reasonable idea to me).

For couples, child care can be done by the opposite working spouse, you just need to fit your hours around the other (I did it for very many years - not because of maximising our money but because I couldn't obtain childcare due to the boys disabilities - it was a needs must thing rather than a choice of hours).

My clothing costs were not that much higher than they are when not working and I worked in a corporate setting.

My transport costs were higher but that was my fault by choosing employment 15 miles away from home. When I was locally based, my fuel costs were no different to my school run costs.

Yes, there are the free school meals, prescriptions, dental but the last two, the amounts are miniscule.