Losing Child benefit

fogartyblue.

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

That's why some MPs are calling for a limit to the number of children that welfare will pay for.

I see.

So the top 5% of the population who own upwards of 75% of this county's wealth (including all of those that sit round the table of the Cabinet Office) are entitled to procreate and produce as many sprogs as they want, yet poor old 'Jack' who has lost his job due to illness/disablility or plain simple redundancy and claims benefits, be restricted in the number of sprogs he can have benefit for.

So are we heading for the 'new master race' - where the poor, the unfortunates are not of good breeding stock?

fogartyblue.

FBaby wrote: »

I think there is a difference, in one scenario it's an adjustement to give less in the other it is an adjustement to get more. Quite a distinction between giving and taking.

None of the two scenarios are looking to get less!

Both are attempting to maximise their income, be it earned or obtained via the benefit system.

As someone said, it would be sensible to 'lose' £10,000 to achieve a greater net income.

Either they should outlaw every possible loophole and take what is due from the earners giving them no possibly to 'adjusting' their circumstances and do the same with benefit claimants or make it quite acceptable for both types of people to do the same thing - do everything possible to maximise their net income!

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

On morality - I assume they chose to have that many children on that wage? Should welfare sub their life choices? Cut the coat according to cloth time perhaps.

It subs their children. Who will likely grow up and pay the taxes back. The amount the taxpayer subsidises the children in cases like the OP are generally less than the average child, yet in a generation's time they'll likely be paying the same taxes as any other worker.

People who complain about taxpayer subsidising children seem to forget that in a generation's time the roles will be reversed, the children will now be subsiding the now pensioners who'll get their state pension, NHS costs etc paid by those children.

MissMoneypenny

fogartyblue. wrote: »

None of the two scenarios are looking to get less!

Giving and getting are two differernt things.

In the example given, one wants to pay less (in taxes) and the other wants to take more in welfare payments. One is a giver and the other, a taker..

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

It subs their children. Who will likely grow up and pay the taxes back.

Or become claimants themselves?

Then there is the arguement of the overcrowded world and should welfare be helping to add to that; but that's another discussion

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Giving and getting are two differernt things.

In the example given, one wants to pay less (in taxes) and the other wants to take more in welfare payments. One is a giver and the other, a taker..

What about the likes of the OP, who will pay a considerable amount in tax and get benefits as well? If he found a legal way to reduce his tax bill by £1000 would that be OK? What about a legal way to increase his benefits by £1000? Is one OK and the other not?

Net end result from both his POV and the taxpayers is exactly the same - he's £1000 up and the taxpayer is £1000 down.

FBaby

fogartyblue. wrote: »

I see.

So the top 5% of the population who own upwards of 75% of this county's wealth (including all of those that sit round the table of the Cabinet Office) are entitled to procreate and produce as many sprogs as they want, yet poor old 'Jack' who has lost his job due to illness/disablility or plain simple redundancy and claims benefits, be restricted in the number of sprogs he can have benefit for.

So are we heading for the 'new master race' - where the poor, the unfortunates are not of good breeding stock?

Since when is having a child a right? Since when are you systematically rich if you earn £50K. I don't find it shocking that you should be limited to how many children you have on the basis of what you can afford. My partner and I earn well, but not so well that we could afford to pay £10K for a 1 in maybe 5 chance if we were lucky to have a baby via IVF because that's the only chance we had to have a child together (because of course, we were not elligible for NHS funding). We had to make the decision that my partner would never be a dad. Yet, Mr and Mrs 'I rely solely on benefits' can go on and on not only having extra costs as a result, but actually getting more income...

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Or become claimants themselves?

So could anyone. Taxes will have to come from somewhere in a generation's time to pay for the aging population. Who do you think it'll come from mainly?

Soapn

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

That's why some MPs are calling for a limit to the number of children that welfare will pay for.

so they should. Working people have to make the choice if they can AFFORD another kid, people on benefits can churn them out willy nilly and they get paid EXTRA benefits for each one, not even including the child benefit:mad:

FBaby

zagfles wrote: »

People who complain about taxpayer subsidising children seem to forget that in a generation's time the roles will be reversed, the children will now be subsiding the now pensioners who'll get their state pension, NHS costs etc paid by those children.

That's assuming that they will indeed become tax payers rather than relying on benefits like their parents. Considering the odds making a adult more likely to be on benefits if their own parents were themselves on it, I think if anything it is likely to make the controversy even more of an issue in years to come.