why is there no uproar over our civil liberties being infringed in relation to Child

The_White_Horse

Benefit?

We have independent individual taxation in this country, and if they are forcing a husband to tell a wife what he earns, and a wife is forced to confirm if she gets benefits, where are we headed???? Surely, if this is the way the Govt want to go, our collective tax should be pooled and if the wife earns nothing then the husband should be allowed her allowance???

what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

this coalition is so weak and inept it is disgusting. snivelling morons taxing grannies, pasties and familes, when what they should be doing is:

swinging the axe at the public sector
lowering tax
investing in decent infrastructure schemes like a new airport and motorways

CLAPTON

many benefits are based on the household income

paulmapp8306

There is no "one" way in benefits.

Example. My wife is giving up work as were moving to a new area (Forces). SHE will NOT be entitled to CONTRIBUTION BASED JSA as SHE didnt make enough payments while employed (15 hours/week min wage - below the tax threshold).

At the same time She is not entitled to INCOME BASED JSP Because our FAMILY INCOME is above the threshold.

Surly either SHE has no income so entitled to income baseed JSA, or WE paid enough tax to enable her to get contribution based JSP.

paulmapp8306

Meant JSA - no idea where JSP came from.

paulmapp8306

icidentally - my wife knows exactly what I earn - as is only right, were a partnership. I also know what she earns and would know if/what benefits she would get.

How is it against our civil liberties? the only problem I see is if your hiding things from your wife - bad boy you.

Itismehonest

Once upon a time & in a land not far away. Child Benefit was paid in a form of Tax Allowance which the man received. Then, if I remember correctly, it was paid for the first child only.
It started being paid to mothers because the hope was that more of it would find it's way to the child & not, for instance, get spent in the pub. (That was when most women didn't go to a pub/club without a man so was a logical conclusion. I'm far from sure that we could say the same now)

Personally, I'm a great believer that benefits should only be paid to those that really need them.
Sadly, the way things work at the moment it seems that it's often the opposite that's true.

Nobody likes to have anything taken away from them but, if people cannot afford to keep up their lifestyle on £50,000pa without receiving CB, it begs the question "What does all the their money go on & why should the taxpayer pay for it?"

ILW

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Benefit?

We have independent individual taxation in this country, and if they are forcing a husband to tell a wife what he earns, and a wife is forced to confirm if she gets benefits, where are we headed???? Surely, if this is the way the Govt want to go, our collective tax should be pooled and if the wife earns nothing then the husband should be allowed her allowance???

what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

this coalition is so weak and inept it is disgusting. snivelling morons taxing grannies, pasties and familes, when what they should be doing is:

swinging the axe at the public sector
lowering tax
investing in decent infrastructure schemes like a new airport and motorways

Don't take the money then. Problem solved.
If you cannot afford to keep them, don't have kids.

bargainbetty

With all due respect, since I do not have, nor do I wish to have children, why should my money be used to subsidise those that do? Where are my civil rights in relation to the application of my taxes to the raising and education of other people's kids? I demand a refund! Or, possibly, I might look at the overall benefit to society and think it's worth the concession on my part.

Child benefit was introduced in post-war times to encourage people to replace the population lost in two generations. Since we are now massively over-crowded as a nation and world, perhaps we should scrap it altogether?

Public services - would you prefer we cut the police, waste collection services, street lights, hospitals etc? It's not all HR-directives and Health and Safety quangoes you know? Or, and it's just a thought, perhaps we should reduce benefits for those who don't actually need the money.... oh, I don't know, like removing child benefit for people earning more than £50k per household per year?

To say that we should reduce taxes, cut public services and invest in infrastructure is blind conservatism. Cut taxes - really? The majority of high earners pay well below the actual thresholds due to loopholes. If those were closed, the overall tax bill for both individuals and companies would produce substantially higher income to the revenue, and we would have the money to invest in infrastrucutre.

Personally, I think CB should be capped at the first two children (not retrospectively), starting on January 1 2014. Anyone choosing to have a third child after that date needs to be able to pay for it themselves? Would that make more sense than limiting it to poorer households?

purch

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they are forcing a husband to tell a wife what he earns, and a wife is forced to confirm if she gets benefits, where are we headed????

What a strange universe you inhabit.

I bet you didn't even tell your wife about your bad credit rating did you :eek:

The_White_Horse

either a couples tax affairs should be considered as a whole, or considered separately. that should be the end of it. either separately or independently. not a mixture of both.

why should a husband have to pay for his wife taking child benefit, but get no use from her unused allowance?

seems like a case of having your cake and eating it (if you're the Govt).

grizzly1911

The_White_Horse wrote: »

why should a husband have to pay for his wife taking child benefit, but i get no use from her unused allowance?

.

Could always ask for a rebate form you DW.;)