Losing Child benefit

anguk

fogartyblue. wrote: »

I told my wife exactly that before the last election.

It was fairly obvious then which way things were going to go.

The current cabinet genuinely believe that they have the right to rule, not as elected politicians but as the 'landed gentry'.

It's in their blood, their families have always ruled the lands.

Look at the likes of Downton Abbey - generations born to lead and rule the working classes.
Same with the current series about Titanic, Listen to and watch those in 1st class, they genuinely believe that they are far superior to those that work the land.

It is therefore no surprise to see that they are creating a power vacuum which will widen the gap between the have's and the have not's.

A lot more of this is to come within this parliament.

Very true and sadly I think that applies to pretty much all MPs now, not just this present government, we no longer have a working class party who looks out for the "little people", they're all just well-off career politicians who are in it for what they can get.

I think we all knew cuts were going to take place and it was going to be hard because of the mess the last government got us into, but I don't think we realised it would be quite this bad.

scootw1

OMG £60000 and wanting child benefit. Is it any wonder we are in the state we are in? OP, you have enough money. Scale back, budget better, better still, tie a knot in it and don't have so many kids.

FBaby

scootw1 wrote: »

OMG £60000 and wanting child benefit. Is it any wonder we are in the state we are in? OP, you have enough money. Scale back, budget better, better still, tie a knot in it and don't have so many kids.

FGS can't people see it is not about enough money but about the unequal ratio of what some people are expected to contribute versus what others get for free. some 'not high earners' are so naive not realising that a higher salary comes at a cost one that many would never choose our couldn't cope with.its called stress, fatigue, pressure, limited quality time. Only yesterday one of my staff told me that even with my salary she would want my job if it was offered to her because she wouldn't want all the crap that comes with it. what the recession means for a let of us is even more pressure and stress but having to lose even more and sniggers from some that we have no right to feel dissatisfied because we after all have enough in the first place.

AgentOso_2

FBaby wrote: »

FGS can't people see it is not about enough money but about the unequal ratio of what some people are expected to contribute versus what others get for free. some 'not high earners' are so naive not realising that a higher salary comes at a cost one that many would never choose our couldn't cope with.its called stress, fatigue, pressure, limited quality time. Only yesterday one of my staff told me that even with my salary she would want my job if it was offered to her because she wouldn't want all the crap that comes with it. what the recession means for a let of us is even more pressure and stress but having to lose even more and sniggers from some that we have no right to feel dissatisfied because we after all have enough in the first place.

Nail on head here. Well said.

The squeezed middle are just that we really pick up the tab for the rest. The last budget raised the lower tax bracket (which under ordinary circumstances you can't complain about) and lowered the 50p rate to 45p (again, under normal circumstances you can't complain) but squeezed the middle by removing the childs money.

What about the cliff edge scenario as well, it is blatantly unfair - I personally know couples who will get the lot as they just miss the limit on salaryin but the guy who sweats blood doing hard graft that just scrapes in gets nothing.


If they were going to introduce means testing then why not asses it by the couple!

The loophole where a broken family can also switch the claimant is a cracker - you almost couldn't make it up from a "pro family" :rotfl: party.

anguk

FBaby wrote: »

FGS can't people see it is not about enough money but about the unequal ratio of what some people are expected to contribute versus what others get for free. some 'not high earners' are so naive not realising that a higher salary comes at a cost one that many would never choose our couldn't cope with.its called stress, fatigue, pressure, limited quality time. Only yesterday one of my staff told me that even with my salary she would want my job if it was offered to her because she wouldn't want all the crap that comes with it. what the recession means for a let of us is even more pressure and stress but having to lose even more and sniggers from some that we have no right to feel dissatisfied because we after all have enough in the first place.

I agree, I must admit I'm one of those who wouldn't want the high paying job with the pressure, stress and limited time it brings. But to be fair it is a choice, you don't have to do it and if you choose to do it you have to accept that there are sacrifices to be made. There's a very good saying, " you either have to want less or work more" for me personally I prefer the want less, for others it's work more, it's all about personal choice.

That said I think it's absolutely ridiculous that someone who works more and earns more can end up with less disposable income than someone who works less and earns less, what kind of message is that giving out? I guess we've got the last government to thank for that, paying people to work as few hours as possible, chucking money at them to gain their votes.

Tax credits are a great idea in principle, there to help those who need them, but it seems like now it's become acceptable to work as little as possible and have the state top it up. It's also had a knock-on effect with employment, there are far less full-time jobs out there because employers knew they could employ people for 16 hours, pay them minimum wage and the state would top it up. This in turn has had a knock-on effect with employment for younger people, the ones who would normally have part-time jobs while studying etc. Those jobs aren't there any more because they're taken by parents who can work part-time and have their money topped up with tax credits.

I find it all completely baffling, tax credits weren't around when my kids were young so I've never claimed them (we had the old married man's tax), in those days if you needed more money you worked more. Now you can work 16 hours and end up with a similar amount of money and lifestyle as someone who works all hours. How is that right?

I also don't like the rift that it's creating, on the one hand you've got the higher earners resenting the fact they're paying taxes to support the less well-off and on the other hand you've got lower earners saying "you earn £60,000, why would you need child benefit, don't have lots of kids". It's the good old divide and conquer, we're all getting screwed over in some way yet we're fighting among ourselves.

Murgatroyd21

While there's valid and various arguments about tax and benefit rates, those who criticise people on low incomes and dependant on benefits having more children miss the point that if the amount of people on lower incomes and benefits reduces to create a scenario whereby there are more jobs than people wanting/needing them, what would happen to pay rates?

Benefits are intended to be set at a rate that gives a reasonable standard of living, but it seems some only want those on higher end incomes to have any quality of life. The majority of people receiving any form of benefit would much rather have a decent salary. I for one would rather be faced with the "dilemma" of "tax planning" to maintain child benefit payments, than wondering how the hell I'm going to maintain heating in the home, food on the table or clothes on a child.

At the same time we, as a country, throw billions at aid to countries like India who have a space programme, nuclear weapons programme, sufficient wealth within the country to have a high number of millionaires/billionaires. Shouldn't we be focusing more on retaining the wealth of the country to be used on the people of this country for real job creation with liveable wages so it really does become a no-brainer between claiming benefits and working, and policies that sees fair wealth distribution to employees rather than shareholders?

The_Write_Girl

OMG £60000 and wanting child benefit. Is it any wonder we are in the state
we are in? OP, you have enough money. Scale back, budget better, better still,
tie a knot in it and don't have so many kids.

Rude......

MissMoneypenny

fogartyblue. wrote: »

But my argument is that they should be 'giving' a lot more if I had my way. There would be no room for any 'financial planning' in order to reduce their tax bill. What yoy earn gross from all sources should be taxed - no deductions - no loopholes.

Countries need the 'givers' and must always encourage these to stay. It's the "takers" that countries don't need and it's these people should be encouraged to think about 'financial planning' from earnings and not from maximising their welfare payments.

If the 'givers' leave to live in countries that are more tax friendly, then where do you think the 'takers' welfare payments will come from?

You can't force the 'givers' to stay in the UK but we can insist the 'takers' look after themselves more, or they can always move to another country that has more generous welfare payments.

tyllwyd

I wonder how the figures would look if you had student loan repayments to make as well?

pjread

Murgatroyd21 wrote: »

I for one would rather be faced with the "dilemma" of "tax planning" to maintain child benefit payments, than wondering how the hell I'm going to maintain heating in the home, food on the table or clothes on a child.

Some of us have both, especially in the south. Try the sums with a £5k travel cost on top (no, not tax deductible) and you'll find 50-60k salary with 3 or 4 children comes pretty much to the same actual net income as shelf stacking on minimum wage for 16 to 24 hours a week.