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

carolt

FATBALLZ wrote: »

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.



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

Sorry, but you're very unusual. I assume your wife is the higher earner. Or only earner? Or no longer with you?

It is usually paid to the low earner because currently it confers pension contributions automatically - to avoid the scenario we had until recently where women (and it was usually women) who stayed at home to look after chidren lost their pension rights.

Should add that this is one particular piece of the whole mess that has not been touched on at all - very worrying for women (or men) with childcare responsibilities.

chucky

carolt wrote: »

I didn't vote Tory, I can assure you!

How funny you accused me of 'running down Labour' - A Badger will confirm that just a couple of days ago he was accusing me of having a strong but secret Labour agenda!

The truth is I have no firm commitment to any political party - I think Labour failed massively in how it dealt with the economy initially, which is partly why these cuts are needed.

A Beaver thinks the same about anyone who mocks his beloved Tory party.

this is the unofficial Tory party forum unfortunately

Alan_Cross

Hauptmann wrote: »

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.

My only surprise is that you think that Osborne is any worse than any of his other, Old Etonian cabinet chummies.

They have a lack of sympatico for the lot of ordinary people and, far from 'believing in the family', believe that everything is a matter of numbers much more than GB could ever be accused of. Look no further for the origin of yesterday's debacle.

Detachment from the common herd is virtually their motto and creed.

Being 'in this together' is so much of a lie that the colossal nerve of putting the idea forward beggars belief.

If you are genuinely the kind of old-fashioned, one-nation Conservative for whom I have a genuine if grudging respect, I imagine you are going to be sorely disappointed by events unfolding over the coming months.

carolt

SingleSue wrote: »

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.

You're conflating being on benefits and being a single parent - the two are not the same.

I was referring to those on benefits NOT single parents (who in fact will be one of the groups hardest hit by the changes to child benefit).

Those couples on benefits or low incomes have no extra childcare costs over those where one works on a higher income.

As to things like school meals and prescriptions - not miniscule at all. We pay a lot on precriptions (asthma/excema), plus the cost of school meals for all 3 is certainly not inconsiderable. OH just had a £500 dental bill. Certainly not just pennies.

Many men have to have smart suits for work - maybe for women smart clothing needn't be that different in costs or nature to work clothing; for most men, it is - don't think most men feel the need to hang around in suits if not at work - jeans are a lot cheaper.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

A Beaver thinks the same about anyone who mocks his beloved Tory party.

Her, I beleive.

And be nice to the ladies chucky.

FATBALLZ

carolt wrote: »

Sorry, but you're very unusual. I assume your wife is the higher earner. Or only earner? Or no longer with you?

It is usually paid to the low earner because currently it confers pension contributions automatically - to avoid the scenario we had until recently where women (and it was usually women) who stayed at home to look after chidren lost their pension rights.

Should add that this is one particular piece of the whole mess that has not been touched on at all - very worrying for women (or men) with childcare responsibilities.

We're still together and earn pretty much the same.

Didn't realise that about the pension contributions, it could well be that the rules are changed on this though to prevent the potential issue you've mentioned. We'd need to see the full details of the change.

GeneHunt_2

Hauptmann wrote: »

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.

Up to a point... you don't think Vince and David Cameron should have noticed that this was a tad problematic?!

FTBFun

carolt wrote: »

OH just had a £500 dental bill. Certainly not just pennies.

Should have kept better care of his teeth, then.

DaddyBear

carolt wrote: »

The Tories have faced a storm of protest over their ill-thought-out plans to cut child benefit for some families who earn over 44K - but only if they have a non/low earning parent who looks after the children.

Obviously this goes entirely contrary to the Tories stated aims of supporting the family, so the inevitable backlash has started.

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???

See:


David Cameron faces Tory criticism over child benefit cuts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/05/child-benefit-cuts-cameron-osborne


Child benefit row: David Cameron holds out promise of tax credits for couples

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8043087/Child-benefit-row-David-Cameron-holds-out-promise-of-tax-credits-for-couples.html

Child benefit fiasco: Cameron bows to middle class fury and promises to help the stay-at-home mums hit hardest by cuts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317740/Child-benefit-cuts-Stay-home-mums-fury-plans-strip-middle-class-families.html


An anomaly that hits traditional families

By Daily Mail Comment

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1317765/Child-benefit-cuts-An-anomaly-hits-traditional-families.html

Yes, I back the cuts but this attack on the family is wrong

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1317754/I-George-Osbornes-cuts-attack-family-wrong.html


Child benefit cut: a hastily conceived about-turn bundled out on breakfast TV

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8042655/Child-benefit-cut-a-hastily-conceived-about-turn-bundled-out-on-breakfast-TV.html


etc etc etc.

Ha ha ha.

Seriously Carol, get over yourself. Families where one person is earning enough to be a top rate tax payer, do not NEED child benefit. I'm a top rate payer and am happy to do without for the greater good. Next they need to go after tax credits which also need to be capped IMO.
I suggest you accept it or go out and get a fracking job.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

We pay a lot on precriptions (asthma/excema), plus the cost of school meals for all 3 is certainly not inconsiderable. OH just had a £500 dental bill. Certainly not just pennies.

You do realise in most cases they are also subidised, the precription charge in most events is a token payment.

So perhaps the state are not as evil as you think, you still get a fair bit out of it.