think tank thinks child benefit change is a farce

DecentLivingWage

Doesnt mean there arent still mums out there bravely trying to raise their children well despite alcoholic,violent or gambling partners who use Financial Abuse as a control - the money was paid to the Mum so that she could at least get food for the little ones (and that still happens today - in EVERY social class, that last bits important!

The_White_Horse

well that won't be the case anymore.

GeorgeHowell

Funny how all the lefties can't bring themselves to rejoice in better off people having a benefit removed because it was a Conservative led government that brought it in. Tribalistic nonsense again from the left.

StevieJ

Very droll, Mr Ed complaining about benefit cuts

Linda_D_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

never has their been a bigger own goal scored by a govt than this crazy mess.

wouldn't it have been simpler and cheaper to just scrap the benefit altogether and give those with children a larger tax code so people can simply keep more of THEIR OWN money?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20912269

what a cretin that osbourne is.

How about you stop being a benefit scrounger and pay for you own brats instead of expecting others to? Scum :mad:

kabayiri

We will lose child benefit here. You have to be honest and say it's disappointing but that's life and you get on with it.

I'd like to see it as the start of a process seeking to reform child benefit. The next step for me is a cut off / serious tapering of benefit for larger families; start with over 5 children.

People who want a large family will have to pay for it themselves.

chris_m

kabayiri wrote: »

I'd like to see it as the start of a process seeking to reform child benefit. The next step for me is a cut off / serious tapering of benefit for larger families; start with over 5 children.

Five's way too many - stop it after two, with appropriate safeguards and variations permitted should the first one turn out to be triplets or more, or the second one turn out to be any multiple birth.

siwucha

I don't get the report - I agree that it probably makes things more complicated tax wise for those in the middle of the scale as they'll have an extra tax bill at some point, but they way the BBC has written the report it makes it sounds like they'll be loosing more money than just the lost child benefit which is crap - the average loss will be about £1300 per year, which is benefit for approx 1.2 children.
I've put off having a family cos of job insecurity/pay to the point it's begining to look a bit late if I don't get a move on soon - if I earned anything like £50,000 per year I think I'd be able afford kids pretty well thanks.
These people should stop grumbling over something they really don't need and be thankful for what they have got - a well paid job and a family.

BobQ

chris_m wrote: »

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.

Much the same problem as with Child Benefit - Tories out of touch with the average voter implementing a good idea without understanding the consequences.

GeorgeHowell

BobQ wrote: »

Much the same problem as with Child Benefit - Tories out of touch with the average voter implementing a good idea without understanding the consequences.

The average voter is probably quite happy with those earning over £50,000 getting their child benefit cut. Most of those affected will probably lick their wounds for a while but by the time the next election comes realise which side their bread is buttered, and that they would likely be a lot worse off overall with Milliband and Balls holding the redistributionary reins.