Child Benefit Farce

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Why bother putting in an ISA, thought they for 16 and over?

do try to keep up

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/junior-isa

exarmydreamer

Put it this way, White Horse. You chose to bring your own personal position into this thread. You have acknowledged that you put the Children's Child Benefit into an Child ISA and that it does not go to your wife as you stated. You also indicated that this is your money at a later date and that you see it as a tax rebate as you pay tax anyway.

You only seem concerned as to how it affects you, get real, you are in a far better position than some. But you, as always seem only concerned with what other people get, and the fact that money will be leaving your pocket - and not returning, seems to have finally sent you over the edge.

You said:
If they just stopped CB altogether, you wouldn't hear a peep from me.

of course it is right I put the benefit into an ISA - it is MY money being returned to me.


I say:
Child Benefit was designed to assist in the up keep of children i.e clothes, shoes, food etc. Not designed to be put aside in an ISA, for dad's use later.

It's nice to see that you think the government have 'got it wrong'. They have indeed, I think it should be taken from every house hold that earns over 50K, full stop. We all know they won't because of votes.

You said:
Either we have individual taxation or we have a family unit taxation. We can't have both when it only works in one direction.

I just wondered if you would change your mind the other way, IF it suited you. That was my point, you would not be happy unless it affected you in a 'cosy good' way and stuff everyone else.

Your obviously very unhappy now that the benefit cuts are going to hit you, so much for having a go at the poorest in society for what ever reason. The fact is, if it isn't effecting you then everyhting is ok but you really can't complain when benefits are there to help the deserving and not act as a tax rebate or not used for there correct purpose i.e the children.

Anyway, enough said. If you don't 'get it' now then, there really is no hope.

The_White_Horse

look, only a complete fool would be "happy" to lose income coming in. why would anyone be happy with that?

as i have now said (a billion times) - i don't care i am losing it, i care that (a) people on potentially more keep it and (b) i am taxed for benefits collected by someone else.

it is pretty easy stuff.

lastly, i don't know why you think the money is for me - it is saved for the child. It is still MY money coming back to me. A tiny percentage returned.

dori2o

The_White_Horse wrote: »

how can it in any way be fair that a household with one £60k earner loses all their CB but a househould on a combined £98k keeps it all??????

This is surely one of the most barmy inefficient ways to administer the cut.

Surely stopping it at age 12 (when both parents could easily work) or capping it for two kids only would be much fairer. Or even AT THE VERY LEAST base it on household income, not one salary!!!!

this is a sickening assault on the middle class tax payers that are the backbone and contributors of 90% of all taxes. Disgraceful.

and all the extra work for HMRC with hundreds of thousands of extra self assessment forms. All because Osbouse is a weak cretin affraid to do what actually needs to be done.

FTBFun

Anyone remember this car crash of a thread?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2769384

globalds

Saved by Europe ..

Those little Englanders won't know who to thank

http://news.sky.com/story/1004698/planned-child-benefit-cuts-break-eu-laws

Cutting child benefit for middle-class parents breaks European laws and could be challenged in court, ministers have been told.

GeorgeHowell

ukcarper wrote: »

Depending on where you live your outgoings will be higher mainly due to housing costs. But if you are going to remove Child Benefit I would say that removing it from the top 10% of earners is a reasnoble place to start.

Completely agree. Although I dislike the thinly veiled class-warrior approach of referring to people on £60,000 as "rich" (usually associated with those who can't afford a new 50-inch LED TV being called "poor"), there is no way that people on above average incomes should be receiving any kind of state benefits or welfare (unless their circumstances are exceptionally unusual and difficult through no fault of their own).

GeorgeHowell

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they are stupid because the blithering lefties, students, unions etc will never vote tory because of this. they have only COST themselves votes. madness.

it isn't the amount, it is the principal. I won't particularly notice it, although it is never nice to lose some income. I'll have to stop one of the kid's ISA's or something. It is the PRINCIPLE.

Look at it another way. the Tory principle is for welfare to be a safety net, whereas Labour's is for it to be an instrument of socialist redistribution and levelling down. Benefits for £60,000+ earners is inconsistent with the Tory principle. Doing this makes it easier to make necessary cuts at the bottom end too with credibility -- the f e c kless, workshy, scrounger brigade. It shows consistency of approach and adherence to principles.

Those on £60,000 who are not champagne socialists are unlikely to stop voting Tory just because of this (they know it's right anyway). Certainly the client state of blithering idiot lefties and various Labour camp-followers will never vote Tory. But there are a lot of floating voters out there who don't feel any strong political alliegance. Very often they win and lose elections for the main parties. Overall they would surely be happier with a consistent approach to welfare cuts than just appearing to hit the less well off.

Generali

It's just another whinge about middle class welfare. It's the same thing as complaining that the Royal Opera House got all the refurbishment money this year when I go to the ENO.

Welfare should be there to help the poorest in times of need. It's not there to pep up some rich kid's ISA!

michaels

I still can't understand how all those (me included) who are celebrating the removal of benefits from families earning 60k (42k net) are completely content to see it remain for other families earning 100k (72k net) surely if the first lot are undeserving the second lot are even more undeserving or am I missing something?