Child Benefit Farce 2

purch

As long as the additional cost of administering the "new" system is less than the additional benefit currently being paid, then I cannot see any logical argument against the changes.

The_White_Horse

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I'm fine with the idea of paying more tax as long as those on eve higher incomes also pay. The child benefit thing upsets hypocritical morons like TWH because people earning more than him keep he benefits he wants abolished but he loses it.

this post makes no sense at all. please explain in English what you are talking about.

Loughton_Monkey

The_White_Horse wrote: »

this post makes no sense at all. please explain in English what you are talking about.

I agree.

I also had to look up what he means by "hypocritical morons".

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

That's not exactly their policy. In fact their entire manifesto consists of "disagree with every single thing the coalition does & hope people are stupid enough to vote for us".

This was admirably displayed this week when they voted directly against their own beliefs purely to ensure Cameron would lose the vote on EU funding, even though they are pro-EU.

Well if Labour are being inconsistent on the EU, what about the Coalition? Both parties are (like Labour) pledged to reduce public spending. Yet when faced with a massive budget being funded by the EU public including us they argue that we should increase it in line with inflation. We did not do this on Council spending did we?

BobQ

The_White_Horse wrote: »

this post makes no sense at all. please explain in English what you are talking about.

Seems quite clear to me, he thinks you are being a tad hypocritical I believe.

kabayiri

purch wrote: »

As long as the additional cost of administering the "new" system is less than the additional benefit currently being paid, then I cannot see any logical argument against the changes.

My problem with it is that it will be seen as middle class people making their 'contribution' to the deficit reduction.

In reality, even if it brings in the projected £1bn per annum, it's just p1ssing in the wind. In some months the government is spending fourteen times this amount more than it brings in.

Why not combine the change with rolling off CB for children above 12 as well, for everybody. Let's make a serious dent in the deficit.

InsertWittyName

I'm one of those affected by the changes.

My day job see's me bringing in just under £50k after pension contributions.

I'm also a sole trader, which brings in an additional ~£15k per year.

This change will see my family lose £1752 per year as we will no longer receive child benefit for our two children.

My partner is a SAHM, who cares for the children. This is our choice.

I'm in agreement with the majority of this thread - child benefit should definitely be means tested in some capacity... but the way it's been implemented is plain ridiculous, it obviously should be on household income and not individual income.

I'd even be in favour of scrapping it entirely and 'bumping up' some other benefit (child tax credits?).

I find the majority of people who are affected are upset with the way it's been implemented and not actually upset by the fact they've lost their entitlement.

I must admit, after the details were announced I ran various situations regarding salary sacrifice, limiting amount earned etc. to see how that would affect our bottom line - this should never be the case and just highlights a broken system.

For the record I will not be changing anything about our current set up and have accepted the loss of entitlement - I can't afford to reduce our bottom line.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

I thought Labour were in favour of taxing the rich more. What changed?

I thought that Tories "believe that strong and stable families are the bedrock of a strong and stable society That's why we are doing everything we can to support families in tough times"

What changed ?

The_White_Horse

BobQ wrote: »

Seems quite clear to me, he thinks you are being a tad hypocritical I believe.

about what?

i believe it should be scrapped altogether - not scrapped for people on 60k but kept for people on 99k. i don't think that makes me a hypocrite. I think sensible is the word you're looking for.

Zero_Sum

purch wrote: »

As long as the additional cost of administering the "new" system is less than the additional benefit currently being paid, then I cannot see any logical argument against the changes.

Fairness?

Is it right that a couple earing £95k between them still get it, & another earning £60k don't.

This is the problem as means testing isn't cost effective. So a system has been implemented that sees a very small minority of people unfailry benefit, in order to see greater financial savings.