Child Benefit Cuts

[fizzwheel]

I've been reading alot of outrage about the child benefit cut for people on 44K a year or more.

Seems to make sense to me. If I'm a high earner why should I claim child benefit from the state. Surely that money is better off going to somebody who is on low income or who has a greater need than I.

I'm in a decent paid job, we are reasonably well off. Even the 44K cap wouldnt apply to me. Is there an argument that we run two cars, theres 3 bikes in the garage and I own my own house that I shouldnt be claiming or be entitled to claim child benefit ?

I dont have kids, so I probably have a different perspective. Just wandered what the fuss was all about TBH and I dont think its fair to blame the current government, I wander if labour had stayed in power that they would have done something similar ?

Discuss...

[Biker Biggles]

They announced last week that there was going to be a single benefit instead of the hugely complex system we have now,which seemed a good idea,but this proposal on child benefit demonstrates how hard it is to slaughter a sacred cow.
If they are going to tamper with it they should abolish it completely and add it to the single means tested benefit if needed.
Then instead of whining about too generous pensions why not make bus passes,tv licences and winter heating payments part of the benefit as well?

[_Stretchie_]

"Creeeeeeak"

Is that the flood gates opening?
No idea myself but overheard someone at work put this to someone else this morning (could be right or wrong, I have no idea) so thought I would put it up for discussion.

Disclaimer - I am not a parent and this has no bearing on me yet so there is no point asking me questions about this point of view or pointing out to me where this point of view may be wrong as it doesn't affect me, just thought it may help in the discussion.


Number 43 Letsby Avenue houses Mr and Mrs Jones, they are both on £40K a year, so have a household income of £80k a year and they get the benefit for the one child they have, HOWEVER number 45 Letsby Avenue houses Mrs Smith, a single mother also with one child, who earns £47k on her own and gets no benefit.

So:

Number 43 has a household income of £80k and gets benefit
Number 45 has a household income of £47k and gets no benefit

It's just what I overheard

[timwilky]

The issue to me is you can have a family with dad only working earning 45K and benefits withdrawn, or you can have a family with mum/dad both working joint income of 85k and benefits remain in place. Hardly fair.

However, I would propose child allowance is withdrawn for all. Why should the tax payer subsidise those who choose to have children

[custard]

from the news last night, think the bigger issue is for dual income households still being entitled even if the combined income is greater than 44k.
a couple can have a combined income of 86k and qualify for benefit as neither individual reaches the threshold.

makes a lot of sense to me, why do higher earners need benefits of this nature. cant work out the combined income thing though... seems a bit strange. (or has this now been recitified?)






any advance on dual income outrage? :)

[Owenski]

Whats your mortgage fizz? we're paying £650 a month to the bank for the joy of having a house, thats nearly half my take home. You add council tax, gas, elec, water, tv licence and there is very little left we rely on the misses's take home for things like food/petrol/insurance or anything social. The misses earns a bit more than I do but with either of us not working (staying home to look after the baby we're expecting) then the benifit money will be very much needed.

--EDIT -- Thought how it can be better worded.

I think benifit based on income tbh is irrelivent it should be based on your fixed outgoings. No I dont mean the sky or internet etc, I mean mortgage and the cost of running your house (tax, gas, elec). Those who have been given council houses and then claim 2 other types of benifit, such as child and low income support. They should be the first to loose the child benifit IMO. They've been given a house FFS what more do they want.
If the gov gave me the option of,
a, Paying my mortgage or
b, Giving me £20 a week or what ever it is
Then clearly I'd rather they pay the £650 for the mortgage and I sacrifice the £20/w

To take away money from those who got off thier arses to help themselves in the first place I think is a bit of a joke, but then again Im heavily biased as I sit in the "earn too much for any support but not enough to enjoy it" catagory.

PS - Above doesnt apply to single parents obviously they've got a lot to bare a 20k job isnt going to be enough to house educate and look after a child in the current financial state.

[Messie]

But the chances are that if both parents work then they are paying for childcare in some form. If one parent works chances are one parent is at home so little childcare costs.
I fully accept this is difficult for single parents though - maybe some allowance should be made here.

I have never, and never, will vote Tory but I find myself agreeing with this. I did all the time I was fully socialist as well and getting child benefit. I really cannot see the fairness or morality in ALL reeiving child benefit, regardless of income. I also think this is true of TV licence, fuel payments and bus passes for the elderly. A fantastic benefit for those who need it, but just a little extra treat for those with plenty of money.

I see one little anomaly, though I don't expect it will affect many. What is neither parent pays tax? I don't mean on benefits, I mean because they have money just sitting there. Seems to me they will still get child benefit!

[Biker Biggles]

Hence my point about getting rid of it altogether and giving it as part of a means tested benefit to those on low income.

None of this bodes well for this government.They seem very prone to spouting ill thought out policy and then slipping on their own banana skins when their own ministers have to object to government policy.

[Jabba]

I'm a father of two and I completely support the idea in principle but agree with most folks that it is fundamentally flawed. I would make one significant change, i.e. base the threshold income level on "household income" rather than one individual's income.

[Messie]

Whats your mortgage fizz? we're paying £650 a month to the bank for the joy of having a house, thats nearly half my take home. You add council tax, gas, elec, water, tv licence and there is very little left for things like food or social. The misses earns a bit more than I do but with either of us not working (staying home to look after the baby we're expecting) then the benifit money will be very much needed.

IMO, if you've got a mortgage then the gov should help with the benifit etc seen as you've tried to help yourself in the fisrt place. But If the gov give you a house then tbh I think you've been given more than enough, you shouldnt get a child benifit and you should be happy with that regardless of your income/situation.
My logic been - A mortgage costs a damn site more than any one receives in child benifit so to be given a house by the gov makes you instantly better off than anyone who has thier own mortgage.


NO-ONE is given a house by the Government for goodness sake! Some people get housing benefit to help pay for their housing.
People who pay mortages get to keep their house in the end! Therefore under your proposal the government gives them a house! Why should they get a house given to them?? Should they then pay back any child benefit they've been given?

[fizzwheel]

Whats your mortgage fizz?

£460 ish...

still dont see that its relevant, it was my choice to buy a house, just the same as its my choice to have kids should the time come.

Why should the government subsidise my life choices when I feel that I probably earn enough to manage on my own. Is it fair that somebody like Sir Alan Sugar or one of the current crop of premier league football players is entitled to claim child benefit, just as my friend is that is a single mum ?

Even taking into the dual income thing into account it still wouldnt effect me as Liz and I are both under 44K a year. I can see that side of it is not very fair though...

[custard]

£460 ish...

still dont see that its relevant, it was my choice to buy a house, just the same as its my choice to have kids should the time come.



bang on

[fizzwheel]

base the threshold income level on "household income" rather than one individual's income.

I'd have no problem with that either. Just seems alot of people in our office / in the media moaning about it.

Cuts have got to come from somewhere, so take something away from high earners who more than likely could afford to loose the £20 odd a week that child benefit gives without noticing any hardship because of it ?

[Specialone]

Right, firstly I'm not a parent but am a Tory .

On one hand why if someone who pays more tax into the system why shouldn't they be entitled to the same as someone on less money, no incentive to do better.

But on the other hand, we are in the sh1te and difficult decisions need to be made and there are too many playing the system, especially the fraudulent ones, this needs to stop straight away IMO.

But benefits should only be short term unless it's disability, if you fit enough for work then benefits should only be there to help through the bad patch.

Sometimes I get a bit annoyed because it seems like parents get all the perks and non parents are paying towards it. Why ?

[timwilky]

The whole benefits system needs a proper kick up the backside. Why should those unfortunate enough to suddenly find themselves unemployed have to wait months clocking up bills for unpaid housing costs and threats of eviction, where those in rented and probably costing far more get their housing costs paid immediately?

Why does an unemployed 23 year old get less than an unemployed 24 year old. why is a single pensioner get £130+/week yet an unemployed single person gets ~50, surely they have the same costs etc.

Why does somebody working on the national minimum wage pay tax on that?

Why do people living in rural areas have to spend £10/fortnight+4 hours travel in order to sign on, yet those living near the job centres simply amble in, surely if travel costs to interviews are met, they should also be met to claim

etc.

[Tara]

to be honest i agree with cutting child tax credit but child benefit no my husband maybe in the higher tax category but we bought our house at the peak of the boom and pay around 1200 a month mortgage fixed for another 2 years the 80 quid a month might seem like a drop in the ocean to most people for us it helps with nappy costs immensley

i think as the only benefit we do get as a couple cutting is unfair

[Owenski]

NO-ONE is given a house by the Government for goodness sake! Some people get housing benefit to help pay for their housing.
People who pay mortages get to keep their house in the end! Therefore under your proposal the government gives them a house! Why should they get a house given to them?? Should they then pay back any child benefit they've been given?

well done, you've expertly pointed out how on a forum people take everything literal and nothing can be left as implied.

Ok so they dont give you a house in the sense that you can sell it if you fancy moving anywhere else but they do house you. If you've no where suitable to live with your child they will find somewhere for you to live.

As a sub-plot they're considering changing that whole system as well, if you read here...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300011/Council-houses-longer-life.html

Until they change that then, for all intent and purpose they do give you a fixed abode.

[Luckypants]

I agree with withdrawing Child Allowance from those with 'plenty of money', but I see the fundamental unfairness of a double income household still being entitled. That to me speaks volume of the privileged background of those drawing up the policy and that goes for parties of all colours. 'Professional' politicians are not in touch with the reality for the majority of Britons, it probably never occurred to them! I received Child Allowance despite earning good money and being a double income family for a lot of the time, it never sat right with me that we got it. It was saved up and helped pay for educational stuff, so it was spent on the child - but even so, we didn't need it.

If they are going for a targeted single means tested benefit (makes sense to me) then of course the Child Allowance element should be included. As the government seem to be saying that everyone should get a basic income guaranteed by the benefits system, then all benefits should be included. IMO this will include disability payments, mobility payments, old age fuel and so on.

They are also saying that you should be better off in work, so ditto Tim Wilky's sentiments about paying tax on minimum wage. In addition to taking low earners out of tax they need to change the system so you don't start to lose benefit as soon as you start earning, let folks keep some of it so that by earning you end up £50 or even £100 a week better off.

[Owenski]

£460 ish...

still dont see that its relevant, it was my choice to buy a house, just the same as its my choice to have kids should the time come.

Why should the government subsidise my life choices when I feel that I probably earn enough to manage on my own. Is it fair that somebody like Sir Alan Sugar or one of the current crop of premier league football players is entitled to claim child benefit, just as my friend is that is a single mum ?

Even taking into the dual income thing into account it still wouldnt effect me as Liz and I are both under 44K a year. I can see that side of it is not very fair though...

Assuming our other bills etc are similar then, that £200 difference in wouldnt mean we were swimiming in it by comparrision to how we live now so we're prob somewhere around the same boat.
We did choose to buy a house, because we intended to progress in the relationship and ultimatly start a family. Which we've just put the ball rolling on, its not like we've done the maths but sure we'll make it work, like you say its our choice after all.
But how's that any different to someone doesnt earn and thats got a child? the child was their choice so surely thats their problem in just that same way as ours? Only its not, because they get a load of benifit chucked at them, housing, income support, bone idle compensation etc lol.

Sorry, I've started to laugh as it frustrates me so much seeing it constantly in the scroates which surround this area doesnt help. You've got the hard working parents struggling but surviving (like dizzyblonde I know she perserveared through the hard times but she worked at it) unlike the majority of those around here who just claim and expect everything on a plate.

If you work you should be living better than those who dont, its plain and simple in my eyes. A true blue - clearly.

[Ed]

I think that there should be compulsory but temporary sterilisation for everyone, reversed only when you can prove that (a) you have the emotional maturity to have and to raise kids and (b) the economic means to support them.

[Owenski]

I think that there should be compulsory but temporary sterilisation for everyone, reversed only when you can prove that (a) you have the emotional maturity to have and to raise kids and (b) the economic means to support them.

:winner:

Would get my vote.

[Littlepeahead]

They have already backtracked a little today to say that as this doesn't come in for a few years there is still plenty of time to work out the finer details and thresholds on income. I bet there ends up being a combined household income by the time it all starts.

And there should be a special tax break for Aunties. Costs me a fortune every time I take my nephews out. Legoland, London Eye, Chelsea matches, Junior Membership at Essex CCC, the Zoo, gallons of ice cream. I even got roped into buying the school uniforms this year as I took them shopping to give their mum a break.

But the one tax that really really gets to me - the way I get taxed on my private medical insurance. It's classed as a perk. When I had my elbow surgey I used my Bupa even though the NHS would have done it the same week. I paid £200 Bupa excess plus anasthetic fees at another £200, and saved the NHS the £8,000 my op and hospital stay cost. In return I get taxed at something like 22% of the £700 value of my Bupa. What's more - if I pay for Mr LPH to have spouse cover I have to pay for that with money I have already paid income tax on. So I save the government NHS costs but pay for the privilige.

[embee]

Right, firstly I'm not a parent but am a Tory .

...stuff...

Sometimes I get a bit annoyed because it seems like parents get all the perks and non parents are paying towards it. Why ?

Same here. Don't get me wrong, some degree of benefit system is admirable, but it does whizz me off when those receiving loads of dosh start whingeing when faced with a bit of reality. Being self-employed. single, no kids, I am entitled to diddly squat but have to pay all my taxes. Fine, render unto Caesar and all that.

But put it this way, imagine you're single, no kids, earning 20k, and HMRC+2 neighbours who each earn 40k with 2 kids each come knocking at your door and HMRC says "Give me £50 now", and promptly hands it to the neighbours and says "Thanks, see you next week", I don't think many folk would be over the moon. Get my drift?

If you've got 50k income and can't afford to raise a kid or 2, you're seriously doing something wrong. Try giving up a few fags, bottles of Chardonnay, put off buying the 50" plasma or the odd holiday in Florida first. Sorry, I can't help any more, you've had my donation.

[Bibio]

why cant they just get all the different benefit offices and combine them into one.

for instance my household.

after claiming income support i then i have to apply to:

IR&C for a top up (child tax credits) as above does not pay enough then i have to apply to:

disability as my wife is disabled then i have to apply to:

child benefits agency as i have children.

now my family and i cant be the only household in the uk that has 2 children 2 adults one of which is disabled and the other has to care 24/7. they know exactly how much i should be getting and what benifits i'm intitled to but prefer to keep quiet as to what i'm actually intitled to, so i have to make an appointment to see the rights office and get help which can take up to 3 months to get an appointment.

without the child benefit i would be royally up shiz creek.

the whole idea of child benefit was based around making sure that mothers would not have to rely on the fathers to feed their children which by today's standards comes no where close to reality. i get £133.77 (33.70 CB and 100.07 CTC) combined a week yes thats £9.55 per child per day to cloth and feed my two teenage boys i also get a further £100 per year for school clothing.

yes i supose i could let the state look after my wife and go out to work but i would be worse off, i sat and worked it roughly out and for my family to have a semi decent life style i would have to be earning in the region of £45,000 a year which would not take into account a mortgage.

[eviltwin]

Looks to me like another short sighted **** up of a policy to make a saving that will be eroded by a) giving married couples tax breaks and b)the costs in implementing a further complicated tax system Read here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8043087/Child-benefit-row-David-Cameron-holds-out-promise-of-tax-credits-for-couples.html)


PS for the record, i don't necessarily believe that there should be universal child benefit

[dizzyblonde]

TBH I can't see how a family with an income of over 44k is going to notice £80 a month disappearing if they only have one child. Your second child gives you another 50 odd a month, so perhaps more noticeable, and again with a third child. If you can't manage on that income, you need to look at how you manage yer money.

For a couple that earns well below that as a joint income, I would certainly notice if both my kids benefits were withdrawn. Times are slightly hard, ask me a few months ago, and I'd have said I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist over it. I've been entitled to 10 or so quid a week in Child Tax credits since Peg moved here, but haven't bothered to claim, but now with two children its needed.

Now to be really effective, I'd like see chavvy layabouts* lose their child benefit, make em get off their ass and go to work for it like anyone else....but then that sounds really horrid, why should people that work get nothing, but people that don't get everything?

*In this I mean those who purposely prefer to sit about doing sweet FA, as opposed to those who have no choice due to illness or other, and those who really would rather work, but have no luck.

[yorkie_chris]

I see one little anomaly, though I don't expect it will affect many. What is neither parent pays tax? I don't mean on benefits, I mean because they have money just sitting there. Seems to me they will still get child benefit!

They already paid tax when they earned that money, and they pay tax again on any interest that money makes or any dividends from shares...
Seems fair.

NO-ONE is given a house by the Government for goodness sake! Some people get housing benefit to help pay for their housing.

Tell that to half of the layabouts around here who have a lifestyle paid for in full by £5.50 a b*stard gallon and not at all by their own labours.

[yorkie_chris]

Now to be really effective, I'd like see chavvy layabouts lose their child benefit, make em get off their ass and go to work for it like anyone else....but then that sounds really horrid, why should people that work get nothing, but people that don't get everything?

+1
Not that you'd need any benefit if you didn't get taxed to death on what you actually earn.

[punyXpress]

[QUOTE=Bibio;2385300]why cant they just get all the different benefit offices and combine them into one.

That's just about what the new Gov't is proposing.
. . . and on the radio today, it was hinted that salary could be ' notionally ' transferred to a non-working partner which would go some way to sorting that unfairness.
Agree with you regarding all the hoops people have to go through to claim benefits, but the above SHOULD solve some of that and would ' free ' a lot of the beaurocracy involved in it - by that I mean " crats "

[dizzyblonde]

Tell that to half of the layabouts around here who have a lifestyle paid for in full by £5.50 a b*stard gallon and not at all by their own labours.

+1 on what your getting at, -1 for your colourful description!

Halifax is over run with lazy layabout scroungers. Its like its inbred into them:rolleyes:

[Owenski]

Told you :-D
Hope you don't mind me mentioning u dizzy but thinking back to our pm's on the matter previously I knew you'd get where I was coming from.

Seems to be a Yorkshire vendetta, as u an YC obviously share the same sentiment.

[dizzyblonde]

Told you :-D
Hope you don't mind me mentioning u dizzy but thinking back to our pm's on the matter previously I knew you'd get where I was coming from.

Seems to be a Yorkshire vendetta, as u an YC obviously share the same sentiment.

#wwwwooosh over the head# can't remember:confused:

But, indeed we do. Petes astonished at how people are around here. Lets just say working in Bradford has shocked him.

[maviczap]

I agree with the cuts in general, and I'd prefer it was based on total household income and means tested.

But they won't do it by means testing because it would be too expensive in man power to check everyones claims, man power they're planning to cut, so its cheaper, but also unfair in who it affects

[Bibio]

the gov already know what everyone is earning. i think means testing should not come into the equation as those that live over their means are going to suffer, their own fault so stuff them.

[Viney]

Dont have children, theres your answer.

[Littlepeahead]

Dont have children, theres your answer.

Good plan - although you already know I spent £1500 on the cat last month don't you! And what thanks do I get for it - oh yes, he puked into my laptop bag at 5am this morning.

[timwilky]

Maybe I have been fortunate, I have never needed to claim any benefits.

Yes we did claim child allowance, for many years it was the only "income" that the wife saw. Yes I did pay all the bills, but she viewed the child allowance as her little pot to spend as she saw fit without having to ask me for money.

Once the kids were in a position to be left with me. she got a job in a care home, working nights so that I could be with the kids overnight and she with them during the day whilst she tried to snatch a bit of sleep. Thank god when school started for them all.

That was the way it was, you had to jumble your child care to ensure you could work. End of. None of this I cannot work because somebody needs to look after the kids etc.

For 20 years we coped like that, both working, and yes we continued to claim child allowance. But it was spent on the kids. and yes I was a higher rate tax payer. But the wife working part time until all the kids left school was only earning pocket money. We did need that child allowance.

Ironically now when things are supposed to be so easy. I have to pay for my grandson to go to nursery 2 days a week. even though he gets free nursery provision now. That would only cover half a day, we need to pay for the other half in order that his mum can go to work. She works at the local hospital, her stupid shifts of 7.00 starts, 10:00pm finishes, weekends, nights etc really mean that despite her being eligible to claim child care, she cannot find any child care that cover a nurses shift patterns. So yup family help out yet again.

Why do I say all the above. Simple as with my younger daughter and my son. Despite finding themselves out of work, with kids etc. They have a work ethic built into them. My father was self employed. I saw him work 7 days a week for 30 years before he handed me some of the responsibility, 3 of my brothers are self employed etc. Unemployment and a back glued to the bed watching Jeremy Kyle is not something you will ever associate with a Wilkinson. You get out there and make the best of what you have. Any job is better than no job.

[timwilky]

BTW, in addition to the above. Whilst the wife was undergoing her cancer treatment, her sick pay ran out so she did have to claim incapacity benefit and go for an interview every month to help her get back into work. (Despite having a job). When she was ready, the benefit system paid her £40 a week for the first year(I think) to work rather than claim. Even bought her a new coat and shoes to make sure she was warm on the bus going to work. I thought this really positive and the way the system should work to encourage people back into work and off benefits. You know what, there was little point telling the woman in the job centre "I am too ill to work", she was in a wheel chair and suffering from multiple sclerosis. Ill for the sake of making a claim would have fallen on deaf ears with her.

[tigersaw]

Dont have children, theres your answer.

Indeed, cant see the attraction. And neither do I see why I should toil to pay for everyone elses either.

[maviczap]

the gov already know what everyone is earning. i think means testing should not come into the equation as those that live over their means are going to suffer, their own fault so stuff them.

I doubt much they do, as they lost all your details on those CD's :rolleyes:

They didn't know BriW's mum was dead, the infomation the gove have is only as good as the ifo they're given.

Anyone with any wealth will use an accountant to ensure the Gov only gets the minimum out of them

[Bri w]

Why do some high rate tax payers assume they should even get it? One of the guys at work said he's struggle to pay his mortgage if they took the £80 per month off him. So I guess its not child benefit, its a mortgage support payment. I suggested he sell his 4 bed detached house and buy a 3 bed detached property. BOOM! He's paid his tax and he's entitled to............ Rowlocks was my answer. He decided to have a child, and he earns enough to pay a mortgage on a 3 bed property, and still have enough left over for his usual 3 foreign holidays I year.

The original concept of child benefit is fantastic, and I have no problem paying extra tax to fund those that need it whether its child benefit, or whatever benefit BUT...

How many families have jumped straight in with a nice semi detached/detached house, 2 cars, 2 TV's, a bike, a holiday abroad etc and still think they need child benefit? And to be a bit more contravertial, fingers get pointed at the chavs who sit on their behinds and draw benefits but tell me what's right about someone earning in excess of xxxx and feeling they have the right to child benefit - OMG, they wouldn't be able to buy their xx bottles of red a month.

Well I tried to stay out of this thread... flame away guys.

[dizzyblonde]

Ironically now when things are supposed to be so easy. I have to pay for my grandson to go to nursery 2 days a week. even though he gets free nursery provision now. That would only cover half a day, we need to pay for the other half in order that his mum can go to work. She works at the local hospital, her stupid shifts of 7.00 starts, 10:00pm finishes, weekends, nights etc really mean that despite her being eligible to claim child care, she cannot find any child care that cover a nurses shift patterns. So yup family help out yet again.

Why do I say all the above. Simple as with my younger daughter and my son. Despite finding themselves out of work, with kids etc. They have a work ethic built into them. My father was self employed. I saw him work 7 days a week for 30 years before he handed me some of the responsibility, 3 of my brothers are self employed etc. Unemployment and a back glued to the bed watching Jeremy Kyle is not something you will ever associate with a Wilkinson. You get out there and make the best of what you have. Any job is better than no job.

I know this one well, having worked weekend nights for so long, and being single parent for a long time, so having only my parents to fall back on for child care. Now I have two kids, I'm certainly not dumping them on my parents, I'm going to have to look for alternative work, as my job doesn't fit around Pegs job either.:(
My dad was self employed too, still is, back then as plumbing and heating engineer, don't think I saw him much either, he was at work seven days a week too. Teaches you a lesson...work hard for what you get, and don't sit on your bum or you don't get anywhere in life.

You know what, there was little point telling
the woman in the job centre "I am too ill to work", she was in a wheel chair and suffering from multiple sclerosis. Ill for the sake of making a claim would have fallen on deaf ears with her.

Unfortunately, my dad isn't entitled to sick benefits, he still works six days a week...try telling the person behind the desk, you have retro piritineal fibrosis, and they look at you stupid. Its not on the list of health issues you get sick benefit for, so therefore you ain't eligible. Although the doctor that assesses you for the benefit, says in his eyes there is no way you should be working. Dad gives the big fat finger to them, and works himself into an early grave to keep mum in a nice house.


Its funny. I was parked at the traffic lights outside our benefit agency last week. Theres a bench next to the church where low lifes hang out. There was three people there, drinking special brew. One with crutches. How much do you wanna bet she was on some sort of sick benefit, screwing the system, whilst my dad nearly kills himself working, even though hes genuinely ill and should be entitled to something.

[maviczap]

The original concept of child benefit is fantastic, and I have no problem paying extra tax to fund those that need it whether its child benefit, or whatever benefit BUT....

As my wife pointed out, her Mum used to collect the CB from the post office and THEN went out shopping for food., which was the whole point of the payment. My Mum and Dad were the same and took in lodgers to pay the bills.

But now as Bri points out its not doing what it was intended for

Those of you whinging about CB would do well to remember your folks probably couldn't have managed to bring a lot of you up without the payment ;)

[BigBaddad]

If someone pays more in, they should get more out. I think only those earning over £44k should get it. Why should us rich people pay for the lower classes the breed.

[Messie]

Just as I thought. For a moment I was agreeing with the true blues and thinking they'd accepted some moral guidance but wham! no
As soon as the aspirant middle class Daily Wail reading whingers start bleating they back peddle fatsre than a harley rider on a track day.
No more child benefit for higher earners - B0ll0x! Give it all back in tax break for the married earners

That lot are true blue down to their knickers!

[yorkie_chris]

Why do some high rate tax payers assume they should even get it? One of the guys at work said he's struggle to pay his mortgage if they took the £80 per month off him. So I guess its not child benefit, its a mortgage support payment. I suggested he sell his 4 bed detached house and buy a 3 bed detached property. BOOM! He's paid his tax and he's entitled to............ Rowlocks was my answer. He decided to have a child, and he earns enough to pay a mortgage on a 3 bed property, and still have enough left over for his usual 3 foreign holidays I year.

The original concept of child benefit is fantastic, and I have no problem paying extra tax to fund those that need it whether its child benefit, or whatever benefit BUT...

How many families have jumped straight in with a nice semi detached/detached house, 2 cars, 2 TV's, a bike, a holiday abroad etc and still think they need child benefit? And to be a bit more contravertial, fingers get pointed at the chavs who sit on their behinds and draw benefits but tell me what's right about someone earning in excess of xxxx and feeling they have the right to child benefit - OMG, they wouldn't be able to buy their xx bottles of red a month.

Well I tried to stay out of this thread... flame away guys.

I'm not disagreeing with you about that.

But... if they didn't take so much tax to pay other people child benefit... they wouldn't need the benefit.

[Bibio]

all i can say is THANK YOU all you people who pay tax. without you, me and my family would be dead.

[lily]

her Mum used to collect the CB from the post office and THEN went out shopping for food., which was the whole point of the payment.



I can remember going to the post office with my mum for her to collect it, and then it would go with the small money my dad gave my mum to feed us all and run the house while he covered mortgage, bills etc.

The child benefit helped my mum no need to return to work till I was about 7, having finished when she was excepting my sister (who is 5 years older than me). Once my mum returned to work like Tim's wife she went to work 7pm until 11pm working the tuck in shifts for the local council homecare team. This was to bring as my dad would call it "fun" money. So that we could have nice things, and holidays. Once I was then old enough mum moved onto the day shifts of 7am till 2pm so that she was then there for us when we came home from school and it was dad's place to make sure we got out to school. Still the child benefit was spent on me and rachael and the household.

Skip to my sister who is a lazy cow (I have no problem saying it) who while she has a mortgage with her husband and a two year old, my brother in law is self employed and is careful in what he declares. They get a fair few benefits because of their "low income" and it actually makes me quite mad because they bring home more than me and drew as most of it is cash that they spend to get rid of it. They want for nothing, yet refuse to be honest because they don't wish to lose their benefits.

Me and Drew would love children, however we refuse to have them until we have purchased our own home, and we know that our salaries can afford the extra cost that a child brings with it. We hadn't even factored into this that we would get help from the government in having a child, because after all it would be our choice, so why should the tax payer, have to pay for our collective choice to have a child.

[Bri w]

I'm not disagreeing with you about that.

But... if they didn't take so much tax to pay other people child benefit... they wouldn't need the benefit.

There's less tax paid now than there was 35 years ago. Basic rate was 35%.

And back then I got a full Uni teaching grant for and a full maint grant. Tax money wasn't wasted on all sorts of stupidity. People coming out of Uni didn't have mountains of debt. Nowadays tax revenue is spread too thin, on too many fringe idiotic ideas and civil service waste.

Don't pay benefits to those that shouldn't need it, at both ends of the social spectrum.

Argh! Get me out of this thread

[2hys]

i have two kids 5 & 4 yrs, & expecting another at the end of november, both me and the wife work, me full time 26k pa and the wife pt evening at a supermkt 6k pa, so way under the porposed 44k cap, we dont have any childcare not even family help out, we live comfortably yet we clam the CB, it goes in to savings and gets used for the summer hols/days out with the kids, we dont holiday abroad! we would miss it but would not cause us hardship to lose it, the wife says it should only be payed for the first child, and not toped up for the addional sproggs!

[Bri w]

Me and Drew would love children, however we refuse to have them until we have purchased our own home, and we know that our salaries can afford the extra cost that a child brings with it. We hadn't even factored into this that we would get help from the government in having a child, because after all it would be our choice, so why should the tax payer, have to pay for our collective choice to have a child.

Lily, its fantastic to read how both you, and DizzyB in her post, have a decent social attitude and responsibility.

When I was laid off from work 30 years ago I didn't claim dole till I'd spent my savings - my choice. And I took the first job I could get, in a waste paper recycling factory, collecting rubbish from local companies.

Some people expect life's luxuries to be handed to them on a plate...

[maviczap]

all i can say is THANK YOU all you people who pay tax. without you, me and my family would be dead.

It's no problem glad you appreciate my money, can I borrow a £5er ;)

[maviczap]

so why should the tax payer, have to pay for our collective choice to have a child.

I seem to recall that this benefit was introduced to encourage families to have children, as there had been a massive slump in babies being born

At some point in time there would have been a massive gap in the population between those who were too old to work and those who were old enough to be able to work

I might be wrong :rolleyes:

[lily]

I seem to recall that this benefit was introduced to encourage families to have children, as there had been a massive slump in babies being born

At some point in time there would have been a massive gap in the population between those who were too old to work and those who were old enough to be able to work

I might be wrong :rolleyes:

Yep that's correct it was introduced after WW2 to restore the birth rate, known as the family allowance it was to provide benefit for second and subsequent children

but surely that was when it was more needed?!

[Bibio]

dont matter as what they take in one hand they will give in another.

@ maviczap no problem m8 i'm loaded with all your tax money :-)

[fizzwheel]

Why do some high rate tax payers assume they should even get it?

Basically what I was thinking when I started the thread. If you are David Beckham* why the hell should you be entitled to claim child benefit

*insert celebrity of choice, of course I am also not assuming that said celebrity does claim for it, even though they might be entitled to it, what is wrong is that they are entitled to it in the first place, when earning such a high wage.

[fizzwheel]

Skip to my sister who is a lazy cow (I have no problem saying it) who while she has a mortgage with her husband and a two year old, my brother in law is self employed and is careful in what he declares. They get a fair few benefits because of their "low income" and it actually makes me quite mad because they bring home more than me and drew as most of it is cash that they spend to get rid of it. They want for nothing, yet refuse to be honest because they don't wish to lose their benefits.

This also boils my p*ss, what the government should be doing is going after this kind of scam and taking the money away, It is basically fraud, and they shouldnt be getting away with it, I wander what people running a scam like that costs the country each year...

[maviczap]

Yep that's correct it was introduced after WW2 to restore the birth rate, known as the family allowance it was to provide benefit for second and subsequent children

but surely that was when it was more needed?!

There's been another one since Lily, although I can't remember which decade.

[timwilky]

Hmmm thinking back to when I was a kid. I seem to recall it wasn't paid for the first kid. sort of assuming it's your choice to have it etc.

Maybe I am wrong and confused

[Biker Biggles]

I think its always been paid for each kid and was known as the Family Allowance.It was cut back a bit for second and more children about twenty years ago.

[timwilky]

Just checked and I was right. Things changed with Barbara Castle in the mid 70s and it went from you get nought for your first with family allowance to we will give you even more for your first with child benefit

[Sid Squid]

You don't get housing benefit above a given income, why should other forms of benefit be any different? Child benefit paid to those on sizeable incomes is wrong and it always was. I also don't fully agree with the stated criteria for qualification, I have no problem whatsoever with withdrawing benefits, child and otherwise, for those on better salaries.
On one hand why if someone who pays more tax into the system why shouldn't they be entitled to the same as someone on less money, no incentive to do better.
I suppose that depends on what you think taxation is about, clearly we don't have a taxation system for the benefit of those who earn plenty - we have a taxation system to bolster the finances of those who don't earn much/at all. It's about the redistribution of wealth - basically universal taxation is about the poorer, not the richer
I have never, and never, will vote Tory but I find myself agreeing with this. I did all the time I was fully socialist as well and getting child benefit. I really cannot see the fairness or morality in ALL reeiving child benefit, regardless of income.
I'm now truly stunned! I'm agreeing with Sally - I shall have to re-evaluate my thoughts on the subject.

[Bibio]

used to be called a monday book. hence the saying 'wanna go halfs on a monday book'. if they said no then it was 'supose a BJ is out the question then'. or just pull it out stick it in their hand and start crying.

[The Basket]

I'm supposed to feel sorry for people on a good wage?

Don't think so.

[cb1000rsteve]

They should leave it alone. The people earning money should be entitled to it as they've paid into the pot where as lots of scratty Vicky Pollard types just take the ****. The whole system is wrong. Never help yourself = gimme gimme gimme. get a job mortgage pay for everything and your entitled to nowt!!! Hardly fair is it??? Granted people who have paid in and now find themselves out of work fair does, but its the types that left school and have sponged ever since that get on my wick.
Basically the ones who pay into the system should get something out. Look outside any pub today and they will be there drinking our hard earn tax money and [p*ssing it up the wall!!!

[L3nny]

Bring back the workhouses

[punyXpress]

But... if they didn't take so much tax to pay other people child benefit... they wouldn't need the benefit.

Well done, Chris - you've hit the nail square on the head.
The whole ' benefits system ' has become little more than a gigantic ' job ' creation dynosaur that has totally got out of control. At least the current lot are doing something about it rather than stoking the flames ever higher.
There'll be double savings - first of all the benefits themselves, secondly those who currently administer them .

[cb1000rsteve]

Do people without kids believe they will pay less tax if child benefit was cut??? your all living in cuckoo land. Your not paying for peoples kids it will be used to build duck houses and pay for decorating second homes

[yorkie_chris]

Do people without kids believe they will pay less tax if child benefit was cut??? your all living in cuckoo land. Your not paying for peoples kids it will be used to build duck houses and pay for decorating second homes

More likely paying off the massive debts we're lumbered with from the last lot.

[Owenski]

Did a little reading on this whole debarckle last night seen as it all started to go over myhead despite it been imminently relevant due to the expected mini-owenski.

Ultimatly, I've got to sit on the fence lol.
I know getting rid of it wont reduce my taxes so theres no instant gain for me there,
I know that it been means tested would mean that it would be a varied figure ie those like Bibo would get full whack where as those who earn a little but not a lot would get a middle ground sum and those who earn the cap would get zlich, which all seems quite fair.
I also know that I'd be in that bracket of getting very little but still paying for those who choose to do f'all and live better than we do which would enfuriate me.

IMO a fair resolution would be the none taxable allowance on salaries should be lifted I think mines currently £6530, if that were lifted to say £7500, and I'd then accept the CB wouldnt be applicable to me despite the difference been the same (ie around £1050p/a)

[fizzwheel]

Do people without kids believe they will pay less tax if child benefit was cut???

No not at all. I personally think that those with a large or in fact mahoosive salary should not be entitled to claim Child Benefit in the first place.

[timwilky]

No not at all. I personally think that those with a large or in fact mahoosive salary should not be entitled to claim Child Benefit in the first place.

The problem is perception of what a large or massive salary is?.

I have been taxed at the higher rates for decades, yet I don't think I have a large or massive salary. At least that is what I tell my boss when I have my annually salary rev.. slap in the face.

From what I remember when labour lost out to John Major, one of the reasons attributed to their failure was a statement about taxing the rich, when ask what constituted rich, Kinnocks man said earning above 35,000. At that point most of the country around that mark. Said feck, we are not rich and voted tory. After that Labour learned that salaries that teachers/ police officers etc could earn were not rich mans salaries.

Police inspector, Army WO1 or a captain rank, all earn above the Higher tax threshold. But again these are not regarded as "High Earners"

[TamSV]

No not at all. I personally think that those with a large or in fact mahoosive salary should not be entitled to claim Child Benefit in the first place.

Agree absolutely. When child benefit was brought in the universal nature of it was thought essential so that the welfare system was seen as fair to all. However, the higher rates of tax at the time were eyewatering.

We seem to have come to a new decision on income tax rates, which are at historically very low levels. If that's to continue we need to rebalance the other side of the equation and these universal benefits are one thing that have to go.

Reform and simplification of the welfare state is urgently required in my opinion. The system risks losing support when normal folk suspect it only exists to help the feckless and work-shy.

Things must be getting bad when I sound like a Tory.:(

[yorkie_chris]

We seem to have come to a new decision on income tax rates, which are at historically very low levels. If that's to continue we need to rebalance the other side of the equation and these universal benefits are one thing that have to go.

Reform and simplification of the welfare state is urgently required in my opinion. The system risks losing support when normal folk suspect it only exists to help the feckless and work-shy.

Things must be getting bad when I sound like a Tory.:(

40% tax on high earners? That does not seem low to me.

Also while income tax may be low, what about the rest... duty on everything else is jacked up massively.


How did the government manage in years gone by when fags and beer were 2p? Or was the government not just a massively bloated jobs program for yoghurt knitting tw*ts back then?

[G]

Right, firstly I'm not a parent but am a Tory .

On one hand why if someone who pays more tax into the system why shouldn't they be entitled to the same as someone on less money, no incentive to do better.

But on the other hand, we are in the sh1te and difficult decisions need to be made and there are too many playing the system, especially the fraudulent ones, this needs to stop straight away IMO.

But benefits should only be short term unless it's disability, if you fit enough for work then benefits should only be there to help through the bad patch.

Sometimes I get a bit annoyed because it seems like parents get all the perks and non parents are paying towards it. Why ?

Agree with that...

If you want kids... make sure you can afford them first.

I don't see why anyone should be given money just for having children.

My sister used to live on a council estate, she was very friendly with the neighbours...most of them did not work... the aim was to have 3 kids because that how you could gain the most in benefits. They had it all worked out. The same street had 3 different generations of family living on it, each aiming for the same thing, a council house and 3 kids.

[TamSV]

40% tax on high earners? That does not seem low to me.

Also while income tax may be low, what about the rest... duty on everything else is jacked up massively.


How did the government manage in years gone by when fags and beer were 2p? Or was the government not just a massively bloated jobs program for yoghurt knitting tw*ts back then?

I'd rather pay 40% than 83%.:)

I agree that Govt has become too big, but paying benefits to taxpayers does nothing to reduce the size of the state - it's a pound swapping exercise.

Direct tax on payroll is still nearly half the tax take. Fags and beer don't add up to a big percentage. Fuel on the other hand....

[Owenski]

its thier own bloody fault for going ahead with the smoking ban. That must have cost the state billions.

[Bibio]

child benefit is but a spit in the ocean compared to working tax credit. there is where the real burden lies.

i always thought it was the responsibility for the company to pay their workers. i always thought that the gov collected taxes not give people money to work.

i also dont see why a high earner should pay more tax.

i also dont see why someone who is self employed should be able to claim 'expenses'. an employee cant claim their petroll money back or their lunch or tools of their trade so why should someone who is self employed be able to.

[yorkie_chris]

i also dont see why someone who is self employed should be able to claim 'expenses'. an employee cant claim their petroll money back or their lunch or tools of their trade so why should someone who is self employed be able to.

Because they're a business and haven't earned money they have had to spend to do the job?

It would be patently unfair to charge someone tax for money they don't have!

[TamSV]

The same street had 3 different generations of family living on it, each aiming for the same thing, a council house and 3 kids.

That's the big issue as I see it. We destroyed our industrial and manufacturing base - there was nothing inevitable about it.

As a result we're left with whole towns which have no economic reason for existing. Large populations huddled round closed coal mines and unsold converted yuppy flats that used to be viable mills. To keep the masses off the streets they're sedated with handouts. Is it any wonder that doing nothing has become a viable option for some people? The people who used to be sucked into these industries are left with nothing to do but nurse their growing sense of entitlement and contribute **** all to the society that supports them.

A knowledge economy is all very well, but what do you do with the thick folk?;) It's not really their fault.

To top it all off we then throttle enterprise with red tape, alot of which seems to be imposed for its own sake and protects no-one.

[Bibio]

just like an employee. employers dont give mechanics free tools.

you buy something therefore you have already paid the tax. why should you get it back?

[punyXpress]

[QUOTE=TamSV;2386511]I'd rather pay 40% than 83%.:)

And then some!
" In 1974 the top-rate of income tax increased to its highest rate since the war, 83%. This applied to incomes over £20,000, and combined with a 15% surcharge on 'un-earned' income (investments and dividends) could add to a 98% marginal rate of personal income tax. "
Add to that little lot the matter of National Insurance, and the marginal rate was over 100% !
Good old Harold Wilson ( and Labour )

[TamSV]

child benefit is but a spit in the ocean compared to working tax credit. there is where the real burden lies.

That's another one for the chop surely. The basic idea that you should be better off working is sound but the method of delivering it is massively inefficient. Either cut the lower earning tax rates or cut the benefit allowances.

[TamSV]

just like an employee. employers dont give mechanics free tools.

you buy something therefore you have already paid the tax. why should you get it back?

Quite rightly, you can claim tax relief back on purchases like that even if you're an employee. Also, if you use your own car for business and get less than 40p a mile for business mileage you can claim relief on the balance.

[widepants]

Quite rightly, you can claim tax relief back on purchases like that even if you're an employee. Also, if you use your own car for business and get less than 40p a mile for business mileage you can claim relief on the balance.
just make sure you have insurance that covers buisness use though

[G]

And then some!
" In 1974 the top-rate of income tax increased to its highest rate since the war, 83%. This applied to incomes over £20,000, and combined with a 15% surcharge on 'un-earned' income (investments and dividends) could add to a 98% marginal rate of personal income tax. "
Add to that little lot the matter of National Insurance, and the marginal rate was over 100% !
Good old Harold Wilson ( and Labour )

They would not get away with that ever again. People would just upstick and move and/or riot.

Investment bankers are an example of this(ones that are actually good at the job and make money). They were told, sorry old chaps we can't pay you a bonus for the next year or two to keep the goverment happy. So they all fecked off to singapore, hong kong and other financial hubs. Then all of a sudden there was an influx of bonuses paid before the UK was left with an even less capable bunch of bankers.


The only benefit there is a geniune need for is for those who are genuinely incapacitated. All other benefits should be scrapped then a fund set up to fund the unemployed for 3 months max.

And when I say genuinely incapacitated I don't mean the ones that are just fat.

The problem is there is so many cretins living off the state with no interest in work that it's probably impossible to implement now.

[Owenski]

to implement such a thing would cause a national financial collapse...again

[Bibio]

to implement such a thing would cause a national financial collapse...again

what do you mean... again. we are still in it and its going to get worse.

[G]

what do you mean... again. we are still in it and its going to get worse.

Yep, I would say there is at least another 2 years of bad times ahead.

I would not want to be in the public sector at the moment.

The UK construction industry has had a hard time over the past couple of years as well, and most of what is left of it is goverment funded too, some parts of that industry could be having more hard times soon too.

[Owenski]

what do you mean... again. we are still in it and its going to get worse.

thats just what I mean,
there has already been one (fair enough its not finished yet but its defeintely started) once its started if there is a subsiquent one then this would mean it was surely happening again.

[fenjer]

If you want kids... make sure you can afford them first.


This is about the millionth time I've read this in this thread..and I've been biting my tongue about even posting here.

I could easily afford to have my small person when I had her in April 2005. I was working a hotel manager on a fairly decent wage (about £27k a year), my partner was working and earning a decent wage. We never lived beyond our means, we had a car each - both second hand - we paid a mortgage, we didnt go on holidays abroad, we never bought anything on "tick". BUT by the end of that year my partner had gone AWOL, I had lost my job and I was homeless.

Ever since I've applied for and recieved benefits. I've worked part time since I was 16, full time since I was 18. I'm currently putting myself through Uni for the chance of a better job - which incidentally the Tories have just shattered with their NHS cuts. I dont qualify for certain benefits because I'm not working or it's not a decision I made lightly. When I qualify and IF i get a job I will initially be worse off working than I am on the limited benefits I can recieve just now. I WANT to work, I love the job I'm training to do, but if I cant get a job - any job - I've got no option but to live off those limited benefits.

If I didnt get my £80 a month child benefit I'd really struggle. It would be a toss up between buying her the school uniform, or paying the child minder, or food for the month.

When you live on feck all £80 a month is a lot of money.

Kids are expensive, I made a decision to have a child at a time where I could afford it, and then it all went pear shaped.

Stop assuming that everyone who is parent doesnt or hasnt worked or cant afford their child/ren.

[widepants]

This is about the millionth time I've read this in this thread..and I've been biting my tongue about even posting here.

I could easily afford to have my small person when I had her in April 2005. I was working a hotel manager on a fairly decent wage (about £27k a year), my partner was working and earning a decent wage. We never lived beyond our means, we had a car each - both second hand - we paid a mortgage, we didnt go on holidays abroad, we never bought anything on "tick". BUT by the end of that year my partner had gone AWOL, I had lost my job and I was homeless.

Ever since I've applied for and recieved benefits. I've worked part time since I was 16, full time since I was 18. I'm currently putting myself through Uni for the chance of a better job - which incidentally the Tories have just shattered with their NHS cuts. I dont qualify for certain benefits because I'm not working or it's not a decision I made lightly. When I qualify and IF i get a job I will initially be worse off working than I am on the limited benefits I can recieve just now. I WANT to work, I love the job I'm training to do, but if I cant get a job - any job - I've got no option but to live off those limited benefits.

If I didnt get my £80 a month child benefit I'd really struggle. It would be a toss up between buying her the school uniform, or paying the child minder, or food for the month.

When you live on feck all £80 a month is a lot of money.

Kids are expensive, I made a decision to have a child at a time where I could afford it, and then it all went pear shaped.

Stop assuming that everyone who is parent doesnt or hasnt worked or cant afford their child/ren.
good point well made.Welcome to the club

[fizzwheel]

When you live on feck all £80 a month is a lot of money.

Nobody is disputing that. You are missing the point I was trying to make in the first post.

When you dont live on feck all, and you take home £44K a year plus, can you afford to drop £80 a month ?

I work with people in that wage bracket, who are moaning about loosing their child benefit. Which I think is taking the p*ss in the first place that when they are on that high a wage that they are entitled to it in the first place.

[fenjer]

Nobody is disputing that. You are missing the point I was trying to make in the first post.

When you dont live on feck all, and you take home £44K a year plus, can you afford to drop £80 a month ?

I work with people in that wage bracket, who are moaning about loosing their child benefit. Which I think is taking the p*ss in the first place that when they are on that high a wage that they are entitled to it in the first place.

I'm not mising the point, I was on a slight rant, Sorry.

The point I was trying to get across is that several people seem to think people are going around having kids wily-nily to get benefits and a house. OR that they rely on that benefit to then raise their child.

/ derail

I think that people earning over £44k can quite easliy afford to go without the £80 a month. I think people earning over £40k can too.

I dont agree that two people with a joint household income of £80k should get the CB.

[Biker Biggles]

This is about the millionth time I've read this in this thread..and I've been biting my tongue about even posting here.

I could easily afford to have my small person when I had her in April 2005. I was working a hotel manager on a fairly decent wage (about £27k a year), my partner was working and earning a decent wage. We never lived beyond our means, we had a car each - both second hand - we paid a mortgage, we didnt go on holidays abroad, we never bought anything on "tick". BUT by the end of that year my partner had gone AWOL, I had lost my job and I was homeless.

Ever since I've applied for and recieved benefits. I've worked part time since I was 16, full time since I was 18. I'm currently putting myself through Uni for the chance of a better job - which incidentally the Tories have just shattered with their NHS cuts. I dont qualify for certain benefits because I'm not working or it's not a decision I made lightly. When I qualify and IF i get a job I will initially be worse off working than I am on the limited benefits I can recieve just now. I WANT to work, I love the job I'm training to do, but if I cant get a job - any job - I've got no option but to live off those limited benefits.

If I didnt get my £80 a month child benefit I'd really struggle. It would be a toss up between buying her the school uniform, or paying the child minder, or food for the month.

When you live on feck all £80 a month is a lot of money.

Kids are expensive, I made a decision to have a child at a time where I could afford it, and then it all went pear shaped.

Stop assuming that everyone who is parent doesnt or hasnt worked or cant afford their child/ren.

Well said.
A bit of real life common sense to combat the Daily Mail propaganda we are all too familiar with.
Good luck with the course BTW.

[fizzwheel]

The point I was trying to get across is that several people seem to think people are going around having kids wily-nily to get benefits and a house.

I know somebody who basically did just that, 5 kids by three different fathers, kids have never seen their dad(s)

I said to her current partner at the time. Dont you want to get a job, his response. "Why should I", he then totalled up all the benefit they were entitled to claim and were claiming, and it wasnt far off what I was taking home for a 40 hour week job.

[G]

This is about the millionth time I've read this in this thread..and I've been biting my tongue about even posting here.

I could easily afford to have my small person when I had her in April 2005. I was working a hotel manager on a fairly decent wage (about £27k a year), my partner was working and earning a decent wage. We never lived beyond our means, we had a car each - both second hand - we paid a mortgage, we didnt go on holidays abroad, we never bought anything on "tick". BUT by the end of that year my partner had gone AWOL, I had lost my job and I was homeless.

Ever since I've applied for and recieved benefits. I've worked part time since I was 16, full time since I was 18. I'm currently putting myself through Uni for the chance of a better job - which incidentally the Tories have just shattered with their NHS cuts. I dont qualify for certain benefits because I'm not working or it's not a decision I made lightly. When I qualify and IF i get a job I will initially be worse off working than I am on the limited benefits I can recieve just now. I WANT to work, I love the job I'm training to do, but if I cant get a job - any job - I've got no option but to live off those limited benefits.

If I didnt get my £80 a month child benefit I'd really struggle. It would be a toss up between buying her the school uniform, or paying the child minder, or food for the month.

When you live on feck all £80 a month is a lot of money.

Kids are expensive, I made a decision to have a child at a time where I could afford it, and then it all went pear shaped.

Stop assuming that everyone who is parent doesnt or hasnt worked or cant afford their child/ren.

Edit: I appreciate every case is different and sympathise with yours...

But...

That's what the CSA or whatever name they go under now (do they even exist now) were supposed to be for, so ignorant partners could not run off and not support a child they produced.

The taxpayer should not have to fund broken relationships.

[fenjer]

But I am, was and will be a tax payer. I'm not making a lifestyle out of it, which is what you are assuming.

My ex partner went AWOL, had mental health issues and lost his job too so the CSA (took 8 months to find him! and then) couldnt take any money from him either. And they are a whole other bunch of useless ****s.

[fizzwheel]

The taxpayer should not have to fund broken relationships.

I dont agree. If you find yourself, homeless and penniless through no fault of your own. What else are you going to do ? Surely theres some burden on society to ensure families, kids that find themselves in that situation are cared for.

There is in my mind, a difference between a genuine case and somebody as I have outlined above, who quite frankly take the p*ss.

[Specialone]

i also dont see why someone who is self employed should be able to claim 'expenses'. an employee cant claim their petroll money back or their lunch or tools of their trade so why should someone who is self employed be able to.

Mate, let me clear up a few things here to the best of my knowledge.

Self employed are only allowed to claim for business expenses, ie for sole purpose of.
If you use your car for business as an employee, you too can claim for motoring expenses.
You can only claim for food in overnight stays in believe and they are getting tighter on this type of stuff.
Tools, if you are an employee and buy tools or clothing for sole purpose of your business you can claim for this as much as a self employed person.

We also have a lot more overheads to contend with than employed people, so dont assume its rosy mate cos it aint, this year i would have made more money selling my ass down a side street.