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

Itismehonest

The_White_Horse wrote: »

See, this post sums up the ignorance - because the husband earning the money, would not claim the benefit and may not even know that the wife had claimed it, if she doesn't tell him.

however, the wife could claim it, not tell the husband and he will then have a tax liability he knows nothing about.

utter nonsense situation.

These aren't examples of a bad system, though. They're examples of bad marriages.

The_White_Horse

bargainbetty wrote: »

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?

Because when you are old, you will receive a pension and that will be paid for by other people's children.

Because when you are old, you will be treated by doctors and nurses, who are other people's children

Because those future doctors need to be schooled.

Why should you benefit from other people's children?????

Some people are so short sighted.

The_White_Horse

the state of a marriage has nothing to do with it. the point is, one person should not be liable for what another person does. It is fundamental.

if a wife murders someone, why not just lock up the husband? people are individuals and if someone claims a benefit, then so be it - but don't expect someone else to pay for it.

and if you want some kind of joint responsibility tax system, then fair enough, but it needs to work both ways, with a working husband entitled to set off the non- working wife's tax free allowance.

Torry_Quine

The_White_Horse wrote: »

you completely miss the point.

Not at all.You seem to think that there's nothing wrong with couples not being aware of each others income and then be liable because of it.

ILW

RenovationMan wrote: »

Perhaps so that there are future tax payers to keep you in your state pension, to pay for your care home and numerous hospital visits, to pay for your free bus travel, to subsidise your utility bills to stop you freezing to death?

I thought thats what immigrants were for.

The_White_Horse

what is to say the wife claiming it is spending it on the kids? she may be spending it on going to the hairdressers?

Insanity system.

The_White_Horse

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Not at all.You seem to think that there's nothing wrong with couples not being aware of each others income and then be liable because of it.

exactly, because there is nothing wrong with it. what if the husband and wife are both directors at rival companies and it would be a contractual conflict to disclose incomes?

CLAPTON

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the state of a marriage has nothing to do with it. the point is, one person should not be liable for what another person does. It is fundamental.

if a wife murders someone, why not just lock up the husband? people are individuals and if someone claims a benefit, then so be it - but don't expect someone else to pay for it.

and if you want some kind of joint responsibility tax system, then fair enough, but it needs to work both ways, with a working husband entitled to set off the non- working wife's tax free allowance.

if it is truely 'fundamantal' that one person should not be liable for the other

then how can it be right that it 'needs to work both ways'?

two wrong fundamental principles make one right?


most sensible people think it appropriate that e.g. an unemployed person married to a millionaire should be able to claim benefits

MacMickster

I think the real point is that if you are going to claim means tested handouts from the state (which child benefit now is) you have to be prepared and able to declare your total household income and savings (ie your means) to the state. A means tested benefit is what it says on the tin.

Like everyone else, you are entitled to your privacy, but just won't be able to claim means tested benefits.

Does your privacy have a sale price?

Mrs_Arcanum

CLAPTON wrote: »

if it is truely 'fundamantal' that one person should not be liable for the other

then how can it be right that it 'needs to work both ways'?

two wrong fundamental principles make one right?


most sensible people think it appropriate that e.g. an unemployed person married to a millionaire should be able to claim benefits

Never mind that despite the millions the only personal income the other person may get is a benefit they could well have paid tax for. No one knows the circumstances of others relationships and how they manage money.