Child benefit U turn being lined up

ess0two

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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.

Why does it have to be 'London' ?

asturdy2

I agree child benefit should be on household income like tax credits. also you should be allowed to use each others tax allowance if one stays at home.

zagfles

Percy1983 wrote: »

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.

As long as you don't want a state pension. Those who whine about paying for other peoples' children seem to forget that in a generation's time the roles will be reserved, those children will be the workers paying the tax and paying for their state pension, and the ever increasing NHS costs of the elderly etc.

If we don't want state subsidy of children then fine, as long as there's no state subsidy of pensioners either. That way parents can support their children, and when the children grow up they can return the support by supporting their parents in old age. Those who don't have children will have to save much more.

ILW

zagfles wrote: »

As long as you don't want a state pension. Those who whine about paying for other peoples' children seem to forget that in a generation's time the roles will be reserved, those children will be the workers paying the tax and paying for their state pension, and the ever increasing NHS costs of the elderly etc.

If we don't want state subsidy of children then fine, as long as there's no state subsidy of pensioners either. That way parents can support their children, and when the children grow up they can return the support by supporting their parents in old age. Those who don't have children will have to save much more.

In practise though, the children of those currently reliant on benefits of one sort or another, are not likely to be to be paying much tax in the future.

zagfles

ILW wrote: »

In practise though, the children of those currently reliant on benefits of one sort or another, are not likely to be to be paying much tax in the future.

So who do you think will be paying most of the taxes in a generation's time?

chewmylegoff

zagfles wrote: »

As long as you don't want a state pension. Those who whine about paying for other peoples' children seem to forget that in a generation's time the roles will be reserved, those children will be the workers paying the tax and paying for their state pension, and the ever increasing NHS costs of the elderly etc.

If we don't want state subsidy of children then fine, as long as there's no state subsidy of pensioners either. That way parents can support their children, and when the children grow up they can return the support by supporting their parents in old age. Those who don't have children will have to save much more.

personally i think that people should only get a state pension if they actually need it.

benefits should be a safety net, not some kind of reward for a certain type of behaviour.

Pennywise

chewmylegoff wrote: »

personally i think that people should only get a state pension if they actually need it.

benefits should be a safety net, not some kind of reward for a certain type of behaviour.

Two reasons why this won't work.

1. People won't make any effort at all to provide for themselves if they know the state will provide. You need a system to incentivise people to save for retirement - penalising people who do that won't work. That's partly why so few people, especially lower paid, make their own arrangements - their "pension credits" are reduced by private pensions, so no benefit at all in providing for themselves.

2. Getting a state pension is one of the few things that makes very high levels of taxation for workers bearable. The majority don't claim lots of benefits during working years, so if there was no state pension either, they'd really be wondering why they were paying so much, when others who havn't worked, get the same or more from the state. I'd expect a lot of criticism, demonstrations and even civil disobedience if state pensions for all was stopped - at the very least, you'd have to drastically reduce working taxation - maybe scrap NICs completely to compensate.

zagfles

Pennywise wrote: »

Two reasons why this won't work.

1. People won't make any effort at all to provide for themselves if they know the state will provide. You need a system to incentivise people to save for retirement - penalising people who do that won't work. That's partly why so few people, especially lower paid, make their own arrangements - their "pension credits" are reduced by private pensions, so no benefit at all in providing for themselves.

2. Getting a state pension is one of the few things that makes very high levels of taxation for workers bearable. The majority don't claim lots of benefits during working years, so if there was no state pension either, they'd really be wondering why they were paying so much, when others who havn't worked, get the same or more from the state. I'd expect a lot of criticism, demonstrations and even civil disobedience if state pensions for all was stopped - at the very least, you'd have to drastically reduce working taxation - maybe scrap NICs completely to compensate.

Yes, universal pensioner benefits are a good idea, as are universal child benefits. Rather than complex means testing or some silly "contributory" principle like the state pension pretends to be.

Means testing encourages all that is wrong and penalises all that we should be encouraging.

The_White_Horse

this would work if it wasn't for the lefty. lets say we have two people. they both earn the same. one lives sensibly and saves towards a pension. the other saves nothing, goes on holidays, buys ipads etc etc etc.

when retirement comes, the one who saved will use their pension and the one who saved nothing and enjoyed themselves will get everything for free. welcome to leftyville. where everything is wrong.

until the lefty will allow the !!!!less to rot and starve in old age due to their decision not to save throughout their life, it will never be fair.

people should never be penalised for saving. why save if you can get what you have to pay for free by being a spend thrift fool?

the lefty way. madness.

why assist decent hard working people, when you can give endless child benefit to people with 8 kids and no intention of ever working. that is the lefty way.

lefties are by and large racists against those that work and have things because they work. they like to take from decent people to give to !!!!less people. that is the lefty way.

why should someone who earns more pay a higher rate? they will simply pay more if they earn more if everyone pays the same rate? I'll tell you why. Because it is pure discrimination, pure hate driven racism against those that earn more. If someone said gays or blacks should pay a higher rate because they are black or gay there would be uproar (from the lefty) but because they are demanding people who work hard pay more, that is fine.

Hypocritical hateful lefties.

pqrdef

Pimperne1 wrote: »

A one parent household earning £45k should also have income from the absent parent.

Even the CSA might draw the line at extracting money out of dead people.