think tank thinks child benefit change is a farce

Wookster

The_White_Horse wrote: »

you make me laugh. i probably pay more in tax than you earn in a year. no one should benefit from my salary other than me and my family.

that is fair. i'd have more than i need if I wasn't haven't loads of my salary stolen from me to be given to low life scroungers each week.

now, the unbelievably small rebate i get with the CB is also being taken. there is only so much people will pay in to get zero out.

Why should other people pay for your kids you scumbag?

You're expecting state handouts just like the rest of all the dolescum you delight in abusing.

If you couldn't afford kids then you shouldn't have had them.

johnny_storm

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

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!

Perhaps should people should be encouraged not to have children? We dont need more chavs, druggies or the next generation of muggers and rapists paid for by the tax payer.

Frankly I dont understand why in a society that is overpopulated we are giving money to anyone to encourage them to have children.

The_White_Horse

Wookster wrote: »

Why should other people pay for your kids you scumbag?

You're expecting state handouts just like the rest of all the dolescum you delight in abusing.

If you couldn't afford kids then you shouldn't have had them.

i can easily afford them.

i think it is wrong that
(a) people on 60k lose them whilst couples on £100k keep them

(b) it discriminates against the children of higher earners

(c) it is extremely controversial in that the party taxed for the benefit is usually NOT the claimant of the benefit

(d) HMRC will be telling other people (potentially not a husband or wife) what the other person earns and who is claiming the benefit

(e) despite treating couples as "one" in respect of this benefit, they don't do the same in respect of tax allowances.

It is all highly controversial, inept and quite sad really. the only "losers" will be kids.

If you disagree with any of the above, please tell me why.

I would happily agree to an end to CB completely. that would be absolutely fair and non-discriminatory.

Generali

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i can easily afford them.

i think it is wrong that
(a) people on 60k lose them whilst couples on £100k keep them

(b) it discriminates against the children of higher earners

(c) it is extremely controversial in that the party taxed for the benefit is usually NOT the claimant of the benefit

(d) HMRC will be telling other people (potentially not a husband or wife) what the other person earns and who is claiming the benefit

(e) despite treating couples as "one" in respect of this benefit, they don't do the same in respect of tax allowances.

It is all highly controversial, inept and quite sad really. the only "losers" will be kids.

If you disagree with any of the above, please tell me why.

I would happily agree to an end to CB completely. that would be absolutely fair and non-discriminatory.

Because it's a cheap way to administer the policy. It's not 'fair' but it works on a pragmatic basis. If you pay the top rate of tax then you are about in the top 15% of earners and shouldn't be getting welfare payments. That other couples earning more do is neither here nor there.

Complaining about 'fairness' just makes you sound like a self-entitled benefits junkie.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Because it's a cheap way to administer the policy. It's not 'fair' but it works on a pragmatic basis. If you pay the top rate of tax then you are about in the top 15% of earners and shouldn't be getting welfare payments. That other couples earning more do is neither here nor there.

Complaining about 'fairness' just makes you sound like a self-entitled benefits junkie.

The 'fairness' thing is overdone. At some point policy implementation has to adopt pragmatism.

The £50K-£60K tapering of CB is an example of political fudge over pragmatism. It will ensure some of the money saved is lost in increased admin. They should have stuck to their original plans, showed some spine.

I'd like to see many more people taken off the benefit junkie program; far too many get tax credits - way up the income scale. You'd almost think Labour wanted to create a dependency culture.

The_White_Horse

but wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper to tax the CLAIMANT - not someone else. If the claimant is a 40% tax payer (not top rate these days) then fair enough. This is hitting claimants who may be zero earners and then clobbering someone else entirely for the tax back. If it was the CLAIMANT being taxed, I wouldn't be quite as strongly opposed.

chris_m

The_White_Horse wrote: »

but wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper to tax the CLAIMANT - not someone else. If the claimant is a 40% tax payer (not top rate these days) then fair enough. This is hitting claimants who may be zero earners and then clobbering someone else entirely for the tax back. If it was the CLAIMANT being taxed, I wouldn't be quite as strongly opposed.

What if the claimant doesn't work, therefore doesn't earn anything on which to pay tax? The only way to claw it back is to tax their partner

Wookster

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i can easily afford them.

i think it is wrong that
(a) people on 60k lose them whilst couples on £100k keep them

(b) it discriminates against the children of higher earners

(c) it is extremely controversial in that the party taxed for the benefit is usually NOT the claimant of the benefit

(d) HMRC will be telling other people (potentially not a husband or wife) what the other person earns and who is claiming the benefit

(e) despite treating couples as "one" in respect of this benefit, they don't do the same in respect of tax allowances.

It is all highly controversial, inept and quite sad really. the only "losers" will be kids.

If you disagree with any of the above, please tell me why.

I would happily agree to an end to CB completely. that would be absolutely fair and non-discriminatory.

If you can afford them then stop whining like a little baby.

You're always harping on about the deficit, now it's your turn to share some of the pain, so many up and take it, or you're in the same category as those public sector scroungers you keep moaning about.

The_White_Horse

chris_m wrote: »

What if the claimant doesn't work, therefore doesn't earn anything on which to pay tax? The only way to claw it back is to tax their partner

then you don't tax them.

The_White_Horse

Wookster wrote: »

If you can afford them then stop whining like a little baby.

You're always harping on about the deficit, now it's your turn to share some of the pain, so many up and take it, or you're in the same category as those public sector scroungers you keep moaning about.

you miss the point entirely. address the points I raised - oh, you can't can you - as if you do, you would have to admit I am correct rather than spout your lefty nonsense.