We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Child Benefit Poll
Comments
-
Means testing should include both assets and incomeProcrastinator333 wrote: »I just couldn't disagree more. There should be no such thing as universal benefits. None. If it were up to me I would even look at tapering away the state pension.
The state should only be supporting those who can't support themselves. It shouldn't be propping up families that are living beyond their means if those means are above the national average.
I'm happy to pay taxes to fund child benefit for a single mum or a family of low earners up to a certain point. That is part of being a civilised society and looking after our fellow citizens. I'm not happy that my taxes go towards paying CB to families on £50k plus.
They just need to learn to live within their means, budget and quit their whinning.
To those who are higher income tax payers, it's considered more of a tax rebate in recognition of the cost of children than a universal benefit per se.
Given the amount HI individuals pay in tax, I do not believe the government lie that those paying basic rate subsidise their child benefit, if indeed this is the case, let the higher income people pay basic rate tax. Then they're subsidising themselves.
0 -
Means testing should include both assets and incomeGraham_Devon wrote: »Because by the time they are 11, they should, in an ideal world, be be a bit more independant. Lending to the parents being able to take on more work.
Doesn't mean the child costs any less after 11. If child benefit is to make up for lost income, they need to increase it, especially for high earners. 0 -
-
Those with Children living in the UKI'd forgotten to include no of children, alas, only allowed 10 options. Maybe should have included a 1 child, 2 child, 3 child or more options. Even then is the number of children based upon the mother or the father or do each get an allowance of half the total?
It's not straightforward.
True but no more complicated than the weird system that they plan to introduce with higher rate tax payers. Say each household with a qualifying child gets a fixed amount of child benefit. Reverting to a similar system that was about when 'family allowance' was introduced 30+years ago. I believe it was for child number 2 or more in the household.MF aim 10th December 2020 :j:eek:MFW 2012 no86 OP 0/2000
0 -
No one should receive Child BenefitWhy aged 11? Can children fend for themselves at 11 years old? There's only so many paper rounds available and child chimney sweeps seem to have gone out of fashion...
11 year olds can be a lot cheaper than younger children - in terms of childcare, for a start!...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Those with Children living in the UKGraham_Devon wrote: »Most of us make a decision to have a child.
It wasn't the taxpayers decision.
No. And it wasn't the child's decision, either.
Think who you're punishing for the sin of being born here.0 -
Means testing should include both assets and incomeneverdespairgirl wrote: »11 year olds can be a lot cheaper than younger children - in terms of childcare, for a start!
They can be more expensive too. I can't forsee a big drop in expenditure from age 10 to 11 (secondary school?). Being a pedant I'd like to know where the age 11 specifically came from and the thought process behind it.0 -
Means testing should include both assets and incomeGraham_Devon wrote: »Most of us make a decision to have a child.
It wasn't the taxpayers decision.
So you're against child benefit for anyone.
I can understand that opinion.0 -
-
Means testing should include both assets and incomeLilacPixie wrote: »True but no more complicated than the weird system that they plan to introduce with higher rate tax payers. Say each household with a qualifying child gets a fixed amount of child benefit. Reverting to a similar system that was about when 'family allowance' was introduced 30+years ago. I believe it was for child number 2 or more in the household.
Is the system they're introducing that complex?
I thought they'd opted for simplicity over fairness. (the one person on high income versus two on income just below the threshold highlights this)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards