think tank thinks child benefit change is a farce

ILW

Middle class yummy mummy will never vote labour though now Tony has gone.

chewmylegoff

BobQ wrote: »

I think the 50p pension rise and the Poll Tax were worse!

C'mon it was 75p. And frankly there was nothing wrong with it - people only got angry because they are !!!!!. The increase was in line with inflation. No doubt if inflation was 10% and pensions went up 10% they'd all have been happy because whilst it would still just have bought them the same as last year, it sounds like a lot.

chewmylegoff

Poll tax was definitely a worse own goal though!

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Poll tax was definitely a worse own goal though!

I still think the poll tax was a good idea. Cannot see why everyone should not contribute.

DecentLivingWage

ILW wrote: »

Middle class yummy mummy will never vote labour though now Tony has gone.

Lol - interesting post!

You might be surprised to know that all the dads and mums love Ed Balls! (PS I actually do think Yvette understands the lives of working mums though....)

chris_m

ILW wrote: »

I still think the poll tax was a good idea. Cannot see why everyone should not contribute.

Agreed - why should one person in a property pay 50% more than each of two people in the identical property next door?

The problem was not the principle of the poll tax but the implementation. Instead of back-pedalling on it, the government should have looked at building in safeguards to assist those who genuinely couldn't afford to pay - as opposed to those who simply didn't want to.

DecentLivingWage

Child Benefit Tax shambles will prove to be a disaster for the Cons .... because it sets neighbour against neighbour ,friends against friends.... just like the poll tax - divisive!

itsgottogetbetter

Free to go back to work when the child is at secondary school? How? Childcare would still be needed.. Unless you are assuming 12 year olds are capable of raising themselves?!

itsgottogetbetter

The_White_Horse wrote: »

it's a disgrace. it would have been so easy for them to have limited it to two children per claimant. that would have been easier to adminuster, cheaper to administer AND encourage people not to have massive families they can't afford.

they could have lowered the age it is given to, ie up to 12 only. when the child reached secondary school, then the parent is free to go back to work.

this was the WORST possible solution. It is unfair, it goes against the notion of tax on individuals. It is disgusting that a man who moves in with a woman can be taxed for a benefit she received. It is soviet. It is a disgrace.

I think Osbourne is finished because of this. The only people he had peed off are the ones who might have voted for him. His advisors should be sacked, as should he. Moron of a man.

Free to go back to work when the child is at secondary school? How? Childcare would still be needed.. Unless you are assuming 12 year olds are capable of raising themselves?!

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Everyone who pays tax can say that something they receive is a rebate. You go into hospital and you get a rebate, your child goes to school its a tax rebate etc.

Indeed so; in what way are they not?

Years ago child allowance was a tax relief; now it's a 'benefit'; how do they really differ except in presentation and social targetting?


Sadly, we have moved from a system where the state taxed only sufficent for 'essential' spending (security, safety etc) to a political ideologocal redistribution of income and a means of social policy.