MSE News: Government shrugs off Lords benefits defeat

Former_MSE_Guy

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"Coalition plans to cap benefits will be implemented "in full despite a stinging defeat in the Lords ..."

Read the full story:
Government shrugs off Lords benefits defeat

JimmyTheWig

Taking child benefit out of the equation makes the whole thing pretty meaningless. That's the only real way a household can get mega sums of benefits.

I think one solution that would be workable is to continue to taper child benefit for multiple children. Would only work without causing poverty if you started for children born in a year's time and onwards.
But currently you get £20.30 for your first child and £13.40 for subsequent children. I.e. you get £6.90 less for your second than your first. Why not make it that you get £6.90 less for your third than you do for your second? So you get £6.50 for your third. And nothing for subsequent children.

This would hit families like ours as we have 4 children, but I do think it would be fair.

harz99

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Taking child benefit out of the equation makes the whole thing pretty meaningless. That's the only real way a household can get mega sums of benefits.

I think one solution that would be workable is to continue to taper child benefit for multiple children. Would only work without causing poverty if you started for children born in a year's time and onwards.
But currently you get £20.30 for your first child and £13.40 for subsequent children. I.e. you get £6.90 less for your second than your first. Why not make it that you get £6.90 less for your third than you do for your second? So you get £6.50 for your third. And nothing for subsequent children.

This would hit families like ours as we have 4 children, but I do think it would be fair.

CB isn't the only way a household can get mega sums; your forgetting Housing Benefit which in my view should also be capped alongside new legislation putting a ceiling on rents that can be obtained from Social Tenants.

Like your CB suggestion though!

zagfles

I don't understand why the Lords even have a say - it's basically a finance issue and the Lords should have no say on finance issues at all, as they aren't elected. They have no say on the finance bill itself.

If they try to block welfare cuts then they are basically saying taxes have to go up - something the Lords have no right to do ("no taxation without representation"). And as the article states they are way out of line with public opinion.

poppellerant

It is disappointing that not all benefits are being totalled - this should be the case, in order for this to work.

It sickens me seeing single mothers of many children are living and expecting the lifestyle of a middle/high class person, all given away because they had those children! Over christmas, I witnessed one splashing out on a new TV and entertainment system for the kids to watch christmas TV (!), and the month before bought a fancy car.

ashleyriot

Of course the church doesn't want child benefit to be capped; their potential future membership comes from children - the more people that have children, the more chance some of them will end up giving them donations (tax efficiently it must be added) and continuing the club for further generations ad infinitum.

Let's look at the bigger picture of population control though and see we are doing our planet no favours.

Pincher

One parent, one child benefit.

This recognises each person, male or female, has a right to reproduce, but any more leads to population melt down.

An interesting trick is to make it a tax deduction, as opposed to an actual payment. This means even poor people wll be forced to file their taxes, which will trigger a tax refund. If you want your money, you have to file your taxes. End of late filing for HMRC.

One tax return, one child benefit.

Are you claiming Child Benefit? [Yes] [No]
Name of Child? [_______________________]
Relation? [Son] [Daughter]
Name of other parent? [___________________________]
Are you claiming half and half*? [Yes] [No]

*Half and half means the child benefit is split between both parent equally.

trynsave

I can't believe that they are even planning on giving them as much as they are! Is no-one listening? The proposed cap will be equivalent to a £35k salary for goodness sake. Don't try to convince me that you can't feed and clothe children on that.

The Govt deems everyone earning £40k to be on a high wage and takes 40% tax on earnings above it and is planning on removing child benefit to those above the threshold figure. Surely if working families are seen to be earning a high wage at £40k (before petrol costs, school dinners, prescriptions etc etc), then surely getting £35k for doing nothing is massive.

Yes I accept that some families may have to move to cheaper areas - tough! Working families have to. Many London commuters have to pay huge train fares every day because they can't afford to live in the city.

Some children whose families are living on benefits might have to do without the latest phone, game and their parents without ciggies, booze and the bingo - again tough!

Harsh - yes : Unfair - no.

I have to search out yellow-stickered food, tell my kids we can't afford stuff they want and be careful when the heating gets put on despite my husband and I both working to support the family. Do we get any 'help'? No way. Can we ask for a pay rise? No. Do we have to get on with it? Yes.

I might sound bitter. I am. Not that we have to penny-pinch, but that others seem to think it their right to be given (out of money we have taken from us), more than we earn.

I am sure that there are those of you who think my views are out of order, but times are a-changing, and about time too! The Welfare State is a wonderful concept but it is also antiquated and un-workable in its present format. Deal with less money or go get a job. And no, I don't believe many are trying hard enough. People who don't have English as a first language can manage it.

Rant over. Bring on the lefties!

gavrc

Equivalent to £35k! That's obscene. I used to think I had a decent wage and I was happy, how wrong was I.
My 10c: I think the max benefit should not exceed the minimum public sector wage. Forget the 'average income' figure, that includes bankers and MP wages so isn't representative of the real world.

gav

nokia1100

If you saw Coppers on Channel 4 last night there, one policeman summed it up brilliantly when he said when he was young, it was considered odd not to go out to work. Now the underclass view working as something only a mug would do.

Personally, I think the bishops have got it wrong. Nobody has children just for Child Benefit, it's the expensive London rents which have to be paid for that is the real issue here and the bulk of the £35/26k. When people are moaning that they will be 'uprooted' if they have to move to cheaper areas e.g. The North, what's holding them to their current locations?

Phil3822

The House of Lords have really proven themselves out of touch. Our household income is just under £30K and we live ok ish. Bit tight at times but live within our means with 2 children. I find this very sad indeed. I would love to earn the £35K with minimal fuel costs, prescriptions, council tax relief etc etc. The whole system needs an overall however I think no government is up to the task.