Cons Lost Election 2015 Already Says Telegraph

johnny_storm

The_White_Horse wrote: »

some things in life ain't fair. this should not be one of them.

Its not fair that I, having no children, should pay for other peoples children, therefore no one should get child benefit.

If anything parents should pay higher tax to pay for their education.

CKhalvashi

johnny_storm wrote: »

Its not fair that I, having no children, should pay for other peoples children, therefore no one should get child benefit.

If anything parents should pay higher tax to pay for their education.

And what about us parents who have managed to get grant funding for their childrens education?

I don't agree with the Conservatives on many things they've brought in, both locally to us and nationally, however unfortunately as a Cllr in opposition (to Conservatives), there's not a lot any of us can do!

CK

grizzly1911

johnny_storm wrote: »

Its not fair that I, having no children, should pay for other peoples children, therefore no one should get child benefit.

If anything parents should pay higher tax to pay for their education.

Don't children benefit society a a whole (generally)?

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Don't children benefit society a a whole (generally)?

I think it's a pretty dubious argument. I pick up litter when I see it on the street does that mean I can get a tax break? I organised a garage sale on our estate last summer am I entitled to some kind of benefit?

Even if you accept the premise that every child benefits society (which I'm not sure I would) it doesn't mean they should come with automatic financial benefits. If you had a policy of taxing people for not having children there would be uproar, yet that is exactly what a benefit for parents is: everyone pays more tax, only parents get money back in the form of benefits.

DavidF

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Don't children benefit society a a whole (generally)?

How ?
Genuine question. As a childless man myself I would love to hear how a child of someone else is a benefit to society ? I mean if they turned out to be a fully working/tax paying member of society for 40+ years of their working life I can see how they "may" add something.
But looking at figures and historical data I think we as a country have too many people. AKA the jobless figure dwarfs the available jobs. Has done for as far back as I can remember. How can adding more to the numbers help the situation ?
Add to that the cost that is met by the tax payer (Schooling, NHS, Policing, Social Care, Tax Credits, Family allowance, ect ect) I would love to know how the figures stack up.
I think after WW2 there was a need to encourage people to reproduce offspring. But I feel the magic figure has been met and we are well over the cliff now (My new fav tag line lol).
So I ask again WHY should my tax go to pay someone towards the upkeep of their child ?

The_White_Horse

DavidF wrote: »

How ?
Genuine question. As a childless man myself I would love to hear how a child of someone else is a benefit to society ? I mean if they turned out to be a fully working/tax paying member of society for 40+ years of their working life I can see how they "may" add something.
But looking at figures and historical data I think we as a country have too many people. AKA the jobless figure dwarfs the available jobs. Has done for as far back as I can remember. How can adding more to the numbers help the situation ?
Add to that the cost that is met by the tax payer (Schooling, NHS, Policing, Social Care, Tax Credits, Family allowance, ect ect) I would love to know how the figures stack up.
I think after WW2 there was a need to encourage people to reproduce offspring. But I feel the magic figure has been met and we are well over the cliff now (My new fav tag line lol).
So I ask again WHY should my tax go to pay someone towards the upkeep of their child ?

As an example - when you are 80 or so and in hospital - who do you think the doctors and nurses will be at that time? Other people's children. They will be looking after you. There is one benefit for you.

Also, when you are old, and scared, and thugs are breaking into your flat, you might call the police. those police will be other people's children.

other people's children will also collect your rubbish, provide meals on wheels, run shops where you might buy things.

In fact, every element of your life will rely 100% on other people's children.

Apart from that, there is no benefit to you at all.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

LOL at horsey getting upset over losing benefits.

Just.... LOL.

Rinoa

Interesting how many of us think that's a good idea.

Hamish and re-wired both thanking the same post? Wow, what are the chances of that happening.

The_White_Horse

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

LOL at horsey getting upset over losing benefits.

Just.... LOL.

not upset at losing them. upset that higher earners than me get to keep it.

if they stopped CB tomorrow for all, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.

however, when they stop it for middle income earners and let couples on 98k keep it (a couple with two tax free allowances and more earning at the 20% level) then I have a right to feel aggreived.

why not take diability allowance from those in a wheelchair and let people who can walk keep it?

The_White_Horse

johnny_storm wrote: »

Its not fair that I, having no children, should pay for other peoples children, therefore no one should get child benefit.

If anything parents should pay higher tax to pay for their education.

don't be a fool. the selfish people with no children, like you, should pay more tax, to make up for the fact they will be free loading off other people's kids for the last 20 years or more of their lives.