Child benefit U turn being lined up

Percy1983

sunshinetours wrote: »

Keeping it in proportion, I wouldn't say anyone is paying for our kids apart from us. Child benefit isn't a huge amount of money but ot does make a difference to many families

Should those without kids not pay a proportion of taxes that go into funding education - principle is no different as its only those with kids that benefit from it (ignoring the obvious fact that everyone benefits at some point from that of course)

As you say we all benefit from education so I will leave that, likewise with the NHS some will use it more than others but it is available to me so fair enough.

But having children is a choice you make, even if I have 2 children another family will get more for having 3 children.

eg, To put it in a currency which this money may get spent on, I have 2 children, next door have 3 children, all 5 children want an xbox game yet I end up paying for 3 and only get 2 while they pay for 2 and get 3, why because they decided to have more children, doesn't sound fair to me.

Instead of taking money off me to give to others children take nothing off me and let me spend it on my own children, if that means my children get a better life because I only had 2 then so be it.

sunshinetours

Percy1983 wrote: »

As you say we all benefit from education so I will leave that, likewise with the NHS some will use it more than others but it is available to me so fair enough.

But having children is a choice you make, even if I have 2 children another family will get more for having 3 children.

eg, To put it in a currency which this money may get spent on, I have 2 children, next door have 3 children, all 5 children want an xbox game yet I end up paying for 3 and only get 2 while they pay for 2 and get 3, why because they decided to have more children, doesn't sound fair to me.

Instead of taking money off me to give to others children take nothing off me and let me spend it on my own children, if that means my children get a better life because I only had 2 then so be it.

Point is when looking at economics of countries, rather than household budget type economics, you need to look at things a different way.
"You" aren't paying for anyones kids anymore than you are paying for the PM's salary, or for PC Plod down the road. We are paying taxes so that budgets (in theory) can be made and balanced so that our collective taxes pay for things that run a civilised society.

Child benefit has been around as a universal benefit for several generations now

ILW

sunshinetours wrote: »

Child benefit has been around as a universal benefit for several generations now

Does not necessarily make it a good thing.

Percy1983

sunshinetours wrote: »

Point is when looking at economics of countries, rather than household budget type economics, you need to look at things a different way.
"You" aren't paying for anyones kids anymore than you are paying for the PM's salary, or for PC Plod down the road. We are paying taxes so that budgets (in theory) can be made and balanced so that our collective taxes pay for things that run a civilised society.

Child benefit has been around as a universal benefit for several generations now

So take child benefit line out of the budget, budget then needs less money and can collect less tax from me, I can then spend my hard earned money on my own children rather than other peoples, if I don't decide to have children I can spend it on me.

Sounds fair to me.

chewmylegoff

"Because we've done it like this for ages" seems to ignore the fact that for the last few generations we did not have a deficit running at 10% of GDP, and a benefits bill that exceeds income tax receipts.

By all means, when, in the distant future, we're running a surplus, then drop as much free money as you like from helicopters into the gardens of middle class higher rate tax payers.

sunshinetours

That is a simple view of it I guess yes

Personally I think there are important battles to win in restructuring UK Plc. Removing a minor benefit from middle England is not close to even the top half of that list and will have zero effect on how this country survives going forward. Politically and socially I guess it is more of a hot potato

Percy1983

sunshinetours wrote: »

That is a simple view of it I guess yes

Personally I think there are important battles to win in restructuring UK Plc. Removing a minor benefit from middle England is not close to even the top half of that list and will have zero effect on how this country survives going forward. Politically and socially I guess it is more of a hot potato

By all means I agree there is bigger fish to fry, but as a well know supermarket says, every little helps.

chewmylegoff

sunshinetours wrote: »

That is a simple view of it I guess yes

Personally I think there are important battles to win in restructuring UK Plc. Removing a minor benefit from middle England is not close to even the top half of that list and will have zero effect on how this country survives going forward. Politically and socially I guess it is more of a hot potato

i agree, on its own it is not a major issue. however, this is not the only watering down of coalition proposals in this area. instead of a wholesale reduction of benefits, and introduction of the universal credit, the coalition seem to have gone down the path of not really actually changing anything, and then increasing the rate at which benefits are paid by 5%pa.

it's particularly disappointing, as if the tories (oops sorry i mean the coalition) haven't got the appetite to properly tackle the huge benefits bill and bring some sort of sanity, then no-one (who has a prospect of being elected) has.

which means we're stuck with this lunacy, basically forever.

i find it difficult to see us fundamentally restructuring "UK plc" without tackling the benefits bill / culture.

Pimperne1

Pennywise wrote: »

You're missing the point re unfairness. Under the proposals, a household with one worker earning £45k would lose all child benefit but their next door neighbours where both worked, earning, say, £40k each, would keep their child benefit despite a far higher household income. That's why the proposals were unfair. Not to mention the practicalities of the proposal which was to continue paying the child benefit to the mother, but to deduct it from the father's payslips - an administrative nightmare!

The Govt really shot themselves in the foot with this one and it does beg the question as to their competence when no politician, nor Treasury official, flagged this up before it was officially announced. Also, announcing it so far in advance and leaving a rectification so late in the day has allowed this open wound to fester and done the govt untold harm.

They should have simply scrapped it in the Budget and replaced it by increasing tax credits by the same amount, so that all families receiving tax credits would continue to receive the same overall amount, and families who's incomes were in excess of the tax credit threshold would receive nothing. Simple.

Whenever I hear this argument with respect to single parents it occurs to me that there is something missing from the formula. A one parent household earning £45k should also have income from the absent parent.

The_White_Horse

child benefit is for the child. it should be paid to all, but only for the first child (or two MAX). we need decent working people to have children. we don't need chav baby making machines getting paid to breed like bacteria.

why should someone in London, struggling to pay a mortgage and raise a small family on a single salary of 43k get nothing - when they contribute a lot of tax - when some northern scummer in 5 bedroom detached free house is on her 6th kid and contributes nothing??????

as a higher rate tax payer, i would be happy for child benefit to be removed entirely -so no one gets it. but the current proposal is madness. it is pure unadulterated discrimination and absolutely no different to saying "no blacks or irish" will get it.

disgraceful.