Child benefit U turn being lined up

samtoby

I believe that Child Benefit should be kept but, it should be reduced after each child.

I know this happens for 1st to 2nd but should carry on maybe decrease to £20 for third child and 4th child gets nothing.

chewmylegoff

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.

if we didn't pay so much in benefits to people who don't need or shouldn't have the money we may well be able to reduce taxation to the point where people, even the relatively low paid, could actually afford to save for their own retirement rather than the state providing retirement income by taxing current workers.

still, instead of that i'll continue paying tax at 40% so that the state can continue to pay a pension and winter fuel allowance to my parents whose wealth is approximately 40 times greater than mine.

pqrdef

Percy1983 wrote: »

SI can then spend my hard earned money on my own children rather than other peoples

You're still not getting it. You don't pay for other people's kids. You pay to (hopefully) live in a civilised society where we no longer have kids begging in the streets and babies floating down the Thames.

We've tried the every-man-for-himself economy. It's Dickensian. All right-wing roads lead to the workhouse. The middle classes did away with all that because they got fed up of living in fear of the masses.

Though of course it's not really accurate to say that you pay the taxes, because the money that's required for State purposes was never properly yours in the first place. The State had a claim on it already before you got it.

The_White_Horse

nothing wrong with the workhouse or debtors prison.

the lefties have made it far too comfortable for workshy dirt.

samtoby

The Human Rights Act has a lot to answer for

xylophone

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if we didn't pay so much in benefits to people who don't need or shouldn't have the money we may well be able to reduce taxation to the point where people, even the relatively low paid, could actually afford to save for their own retirement rather than the state providing retirement income by taxing current workers.

still, instead of that i'll continue paying tax at 40% so that the state can continue to pay a pension and winter fuel allowance to my parents whose wealth is approximately 40 times greater than mine.

I assume that your parents paid their NICs and tax? By so doing they paid the pensions of their parents' generation. They also brought you up and financed your education?

How do you dare to suggest that they don't deserve their pensions/winter fuel allowance?

With regard to the CB question, it was wholly illogical and outrageously unfair that a household with one HRTP should lose the benefit while another with two LRTPs with income well over £43000 a year should keep it.

Pimperne1

pqrdef wrote: »

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

Yeah that's the problem with the CSA. Too soft.

DaddyBear

If they're going to go through with this I can't see why they haven't also targeted winter fuel allowance and bus passes. There are 'pensioners' sitting in million pound houses and travelling the world, but still getting free bus passes and a wacking fuel subsidy at my expense.

Pimperne1

DaddyBear wrote: »

If they're going to go through with this I can't see why they haven't also targeted winter fuel allowance and bus passes. There are 'pensioners' sitting in million pound houses and travelling the world, but still getting free bus passes and a wacking fuel subsidy at my expense.

And disabled people who win the lottery but are still entitled to claim their allowance.

chewmylegoff

xylophone wrote: »

I assume that your parents paid their NICs and tax? By so doing they paid the pensions of their parents' generation. They also brought you up and financed your education?

How do you dare to suggest that they don't deserve their pensions/winter fuel allowance?

With regard to the CB question, it was wholly illogical and outrageously unfair that a household with one HRTP should lose the benefit while another with two LRTPs with income well over £43000 a year should keep it.

How do I dare suggest it?

Because they're multimillionaires, that's why.

If we accept that the more you earn the higher the rate of tax you should pay, why does this model break down when it comes to receiving certain state benefits.

I pay tax but I don't seem to be entitled to receive loads of free money. I suppose you think that is equally outrageous? No? Thought not. The fact that someone has paid some tax doesnt mean the state should give them money that they have no need for.