Child Benefit Rant [Archive] - Page 2 - SV650.org

dizzyblonde

25-01-12, 02:40 PM

So, how many object to their taxes going to other countries in aid, rather than Child Benefit in this country? Fact of the matter is, the government might review who gets CB here, but they certainly won't be lowering their overseas aid...or indeed wars and troops etc.

If they didn't cough up excessive amounts of money in aid, then CB wouldn't need looking at. I have nothing against raising money for charity when it is my choice, but not when the choice is forced, via tax, at the forfeight of our own countires needs.

Whose children would you rather pay for in your taxes, our countries, or some other countries child....who has no connection whatsoever, and not likely to contribute to it either in the future???

hardhat_harry

25-01-12, 02:47 PM

I do like the way Ralph widened the arguement to include all benefits when we were talking about Child Benefit.

Like Squirrel Hunter said "children are a lifestyle choice" and a drain on resources so why should the state reward you for it.

There is currently just over 62 million people living in the UK isn't that enough people?

Someone else said the country will become a wasteland, thats going to take a while with 62 million people.

We should be rewarding population control not expansion.

shonadoll

25-01-12, 02:49 PM

Interesting thread. Personally yes cb should be means tested but I can get high earners points and agree with a lot of them. It ****es me off there are no tax breaks for stay at home parents also, after being at home with the kids for ten years, getting taxed at higher rate and no advantage-now I'm working part time so feel a bit better about it but annoyed me no,end.

And if we stick to the I don't have kids so I'm not paying, do I get a refund for not using the NHS since I have private health care?

hardhat_harry

25-01-12, 02:59 PM

I have private health too but getting sick isn't a lifestyle choice it more to do with luck. I know being fat, smoking and drinking can move the odds towards it happening but its not a certainty.

Having kids is a lifestyle choice.

And if we stick to the I don't have kids so I'm not paying, do I get a refund for not using the NHS since I have private health care?

shonadoll

25-01-12, 03:09 PM

So is drinking every night, diabetes due to obesity, and on and on. Besides, because we are in 40% tax bracket child benefit is the only benefit we have ever had.

blue curvy jester

25-01-12, 03:23 PM

Riding bikes is a lifestyle choice so does my misses get a rebate from the NHS for never getting gravel rash?

bikeramy

25-01-12, 03:24 PM

I know a few people who are on good money and only started claiming CSA maintenance from there kids fathers when they found out child tax credits don't take into account CSA anymore, wouldn't claim before hand for fear of it affecting their benefits. Their is people out there that use and abuse the system, the genuine get cast aside. All this benefit people get for having more and more kids encourages, no wonder people see it more of an investment to have a child. Sorry if this bothers people, just my opinion.

shonadoll

25-01-12, 04:06 PM

Riding bikes is a lifestyle choice so does my misses get a rebate from the NHS for never getting gravel rash?

Exactly my point, it's daft...

-Ralph-

25-01-12, 04:18 PM

I did think I'd made it clear that I wasn't singling anyone out, and was commenting on an overall impression the entire thread had left with me, but hey ho.

One nail Dizzy hit on the head was the hypocrisy that for sure exists here. Just like very few old people give back their winter fuel allowance, if they believe they can afford to do without it, how many people knocking child benefit here, would give it back if they did actually have children? Very few I think, suddenly their perspective would change and they'd be taxpayers who pay loads of tax, and are 'entitled' to something back.

To clarify I object to paying for someones lifestyle choice, and this has nothing to do with my lifestyle choices

I have private health too but getting sick isn't a lifestyle choice it more to do with luck.

Having kids is a lifestyle choice.

I think it's clear enough, but just for absolute clarity, are we now saying that we are happy to pay for things we don't benefit from, so long as we are not paying for somebody else's lifestyle choice?

If that's the case we need to stop taking the following from taxes, and start charging only the people that choose to use these public services, as part of their lifestyle choice.

Free parking for motorbike users
Churches and worship
Public parks, play areas and all common land
Beaches and promenades
National Parks
Public rights of way and recreational cycle ways
Libraries
Public Museums
Public Zoo's
Remove subsidy from all swimming pools and public sports facilities
Tax people who own dogs more to pay for dog wardens
Alcohol, smoking & drugs related services
Inoculations for foreign travel on the NHS
Public celebrations
Youth clubs
Marriage registries
All traveller and gypsy services
....etc
....etc
....how ridiculous is this list???

No more ridiculous than saying you object to paying for other peoples lifestyle choices, civilised society exists in order to provide it's members with a lifestyle.

I don't think they've got the policy on child benefit right, they haven't got a lot of things spent out of the public pot right, but that's not related to, and is not going to send me off moaning about, what I pay into that pot (and yes, I pay a f**k of a lot into that pot).

squirrel_hunter

25-01-12, 04:45 PM

Ralph, that is a lovely list. Some things I would support paying taxes for some things I would not, these are based purely on my own value system. However this are not what is being discussed here, Child Benefit is.

civilised society exists in order to provide it's members with a lifestyle.

I disagree with that. Civilised Society exists to enable its members to have a lifestyle of their choosing within an agreed framework, not to provide it.

However I still do not understand why I should subsides someone else's lifestyle choices in the form of Child Benefit?

TamSV

25-01-12, 05:03 PM

Whose children would you rather pay for in your taxes, our countries, or some other countries child....who has no connection whatsoever, and not likely to contribute to it either in the future???

If I was faced with the choice, probably the other country TBH. A kid that only has one games console, versus a kid at risk of malaria? Easy.

In the main I'd like people in this country, with all its advantages, to support their own kids.

-Ralph-

25-01-12, 05:06 PM

enable vs provide

lifestyle vs 'lifestyle with an agreed framework'

Getting really pedantic about individual words now, where actually we'd agree on the meanings.

You can't actually even measure how much you take out of the system versus how much you put in. £13k is the per adult spend, but that's money spent on your behalf, not money spent on you. Some people will cost half that, some people cost double that. Some people pay in half that, some very rich people pay in 10 times that. Some people use lots of my above list of services, some people use none. Some people cost the NHS a fortune, some never get ill. If you pay approx half your income in taxation, and you earn £26k, are you even subsidising anybody? Or did you break even? How much would your last lot of hospital treatment cost the country?

It's completely bolox argument, you are not subsidising anybody elses lifestyle, you are paying tax into a public pot, then that public pot is distributing money back out again. How that money is distributed out is something you have a right to complain about, and I'm not telling you what I earn, I don't want to know what you earn, and neither of us really know what we cost the country, but don't tell me that YOU are subsidising MY lifestyle, because you pay tax and I'm paid child benefit. :smt102

squirrel_hunter

25-01-12, 06:18 PM

Enable and provide are very different things. However I'm happy to let that be to keep the discussion about Child Benefit.

I accept that some people essentially take out more than what they or someone else may put in. But I’m not objecting to that. I’m am content with the way the Welfare State works in that respect.

I also understand how taxation works in that I pay money into a big pot and it is dished out. I object to the way the money that I have paid in is being distributed in the form of Child Benefit, and so indirectly I am subsiding someones lifestyle just like you or any other tax payer is.

So I ask again why I should subsides someone else's lifestyle choices in the form of Child Benefit?

-Ralph-

25-01-12, 06:29 PM

So I ask again why I should subsides someone else's lifestyle choices in the form of Child Benefit?

And I'll tell you again, you are not. You are paying tax, which is the law. Write to your MP about the distribution of child benefit. They are two separate issues.

If you can't cope with the fact that you don't directly control what your tax pounds are spent on, go somewhere that you don't have to pay it, and where you have to pay for every service you consume.

squirrel_hunter

25-01-12, 06:55 PM

And I'll tell you again, you are not. You are paying tax, which is the law. Write to your MP about the distribution of child benefit. They are two separate issues.

If you can't cope with the fact that you don't directly control what your tax pounds are spent on, go somewhere that you don't have to pay it, and where you have to pay for every service you consume.

Ralph, its just a discussion on Child Benefit. As part of the discussion I have stated my point of view and am looking forward to someone presenting a compelling case for Child Benefit. But I've not seen one so far...

-Ralph-

25-01-12, 07:07 PM

This isn't going to make me popular, but I'm sorry...

I can't see why I should subside someone else's lifestyle choice. Its your choice to have kids, you pay for them.

And I have been paying into it for years also, but that doesn't change my opinion. At the time those are the rules, the rules look like they are changing, I welcome this change accepting that I may never see any Child Benefit payment regardless of the lifestyle decisions I make.

Firstly the phase "anti-society". I am not against Society the Welfare State is one of the things that is great about this country. It is not perfect though.

That is not the attitude I have. To clarify I object to paying for someones lifestyle choice, and this has nothing to do with my lifestyle choices. There are lots of things that I am happy to see my tax money going to pay for that I do not use or benefit from.

It is a choice to have children. So why should I subside this choice in the form of Child Benefit?

Ralph, that is a lovely list. Some things I would support paying taxes for some things I would not, these are based purely on my own value system. However this are not what is being discussed here, Child Benefit is.

I disagree with that. Civilised Society exists to enable its members to have a lifestyle of their choosing within an agreed framework, not to provide it.

However I still do not understand why I should subsides someone else's lifestyle choices in the form of Child Benefit?

Enable and provide are very different things. However I'm happy to let that be to keep the discussion about Child Benefit.

I accept that some people essentially take out more than what they or someone else may put in. But I’m not objecting to that. I’m am content with the way the Welfare State works in that respect.

I also understand how taxation works in that I pay money into a big pot and it is dished out. I object to the way the money that I have paid in is being distributed in the form of Child Benefit, and so indirectly I am subsiding someones lifestyle just like you or any other tax payer is.

So I ask again why I should subsides someone else's lifestyle choices in the form of Child Benefit?

Ralph, its just a discussion on Child Benefit. As part of the discussion I have stated my point of view and am looking forward to someone presenting a compelling case for Child Benefit. But I've not seen one so far...

Have you presented a compelling case against child benefit somewhere? If so, sorry, but I've missed it.

Bri w

25-01-12, 07:44 PM

The social commitment (responsibility) that is universally recognised that an individual should accept to be part of a society is that of mutual support. The responsibility to provide that support on our behalf is one we 'abdicate' to govt. Note; society enables us all to benefit from something we would not normally be able to provide for ourselves, e.g. who paid for the roads we rode along today, and who paid for the hospital we will undoubtedly need before we die? To be part of society we also accept that there will be 'rules' we don't like, some of which we have to follow, e.g. income tax payments.

It could be argued that because we choose to live 10 miles away from work we have made a lifestyle choice, and yet we use the road provided that we couldn't afford to pay for ourselves. So are 'we' sponging off society by using something 'we' couldn't afford? Call it Road Benefit.

Should everyone be entitled to child benefit irrespective of their income? In a society with limited resources harsh decisions need to be made and, IMO, those having a household income in excess of 'x' should not get child benefit. Those that earn more than 'x' but argue for it are not thinking of anyone other than themselves, and not for society as a whole - its a bit like saying I won't take a pay cut to keep jobs, sack Joe Bloggs coz he was last one in.

454697819

25-01-12, 07:45 PM

Have you presented a compelling case against child benefit somewhere? If so, sorry, but I've missed it.

agreed.. as I stated earlier the basis for your argument of not being bothered if it is axed because you will probably not use it is moot....

My bug bear is simple..

I pay a fortune in tax and have done for many years

I do not and cannot claim any other welfare because of the hardwork I have put it...

Now the opportunity should be there for me to claim a tiny amount back it is being removed and I am somewhat ****ed off...

other than "funding my lifestyle choice" what is your argument against CB it seems to be so vague its non existent? :smt065

tactcom7

25-01-12, 07:48 PM

AFAIC people on benefits, housing and child etc who don't work should not be able to afford to smoke, drink, go out etc. every penny should go on food and the kid. No big t.v's or sky or owt.

squirrel_hunter

25-01-12, 07:50 PM

Compelling is down to interpretation Ralph.

All I have said is that I do not agree with paying out Child Benefit as a Tax Payer as it is subsiding a lifestyle choice. That is my argument, my position on the subject. Some may consider it a compelling argument against Child Benefit, thats interpretation.

But I would be happy to hear an opposing view as to why Child Benefit should be paid.

Bri w

25-01-12, 07:58 PM

agreed.. as I stated earlier the basis for your argument of not being bothered if it is axed because you will probably not use it is moot....

My bug bear is simple..

I pay a fortune in tax and have done for many years

I do not and cannot claim any other welfare because of the hardwork I have put it...

Now the opportunity should be there for me to claim a tiny amount back it is being removed and I am somewhat ****ed off...

other than "funding my lifestyle choice" what is your argument against CB it seems to be so vague its non existent? :smt065

I also pay a fortune in tax but don't see I have a right to something when the country is struggling. If anything I'd accept a rise in income tax if it meant pulling this country out of the mess its in.

But to ask the question why should you and 1000's of others be taking out of the pot when the pot is struggling to cope?

squirrel_hunter

25-01-12, 08:16 PM

as I stated earlier the basis for your argument of not being bothered if it is axed because you will probably not use it is moot....

Thats never been my argument. I was somewhat puzzled by your original comment so thanks for clarifying that.

So to clarify, regardless of the lifestyle choices that I or anyone else makes I do not think that Child Benefit should be paid.

Just because someone has a child does not mean that they deserve more than anyone else. A decision was made to have a child, it should be entered into with eyes open and not just freely rewarded. The idea of being given money simply for having a child is prosperous to me.

The original point of Child Benefit has in my opinion in the most part been achieved. My understanding of the history of CB was to prevent poverty in a time where this was a very real problem. Don't get me wrong there is still poverty in this country but the Welfare State has moved on and evolved with an aim to tackle this so CB as a blanket benefit is no longer needed. The money would be better spent targeting those below the poverty line and those on the edge.

punyXpress

25-01-12, 08:35 PM

" A decision was made to have a child "
Forgive me, I've led a sheltered life, but do the idlers REALLY make that decision?
I doubt it. All they ( both parties usually ) just want is a few moments gratification, and to Hell with the consequences and the poor beggars who have to foot the bill.
Come up here in about 6 weeks' time and watch the frogs spawning. It's exactly the same process which is a little bit sad but there you go. ( and THEY do it for a purpose )

MisterTommyH

25-01-12, 09:11 PM

James 45 years old and is Director of his own firm and pays himself a salary of £100k a year, he started out with nothing when he was 22 and left University has worked bloody hard and had some genius and a bit of luck to get there.

If James is bothered he should start paying himself a minimal wage and live off the dividends to reduce his tax liability. Not very community minded, but it's in the rules and plenty of people do it.

I know a few people who are on good money and only started claiming CSA maintenance from there kids fathers when they found out child tax credits don't take into account CSA anymore, wouldn't claim before hand for fear of it affecting their benefits.

When I worked there (please no one judge me) if you were on benefits you had no choice but to claim and any payments received went back into the public purse to re-inburse what had been paid out - You had to put a very convincing case forward about how claiming would be detrimental on you life to be allowed not to claim.

Personal beliefs - glad we have a support system. I want it there if I need it one day. Don't have the attitude that why should I pay for others....because it's the society I choose to live in and contribute to. I do have a problem with the situation where someone can sit back, choose not to work and effectively be getting more take home than me.

Our economy is fecked (anyone trying to argue otherwise is blind or stupid) and there has to be a line somewhere. No one seems to have been able to provide a reasonable argument as to why the limit of £26K is too low and I'd challenge anyone to do so - this being the case whats your objection?

On a similar line there has to be a line for child benefit - no one has argued that anyone reaching the £40k cut off point would be in poverty - the main argument seems to be why should I pay for.....etc etc... Well, you may be in need of it someday and hopefully it will be there for you when you do - but it should only be there for those who actually do need it - not those who sit back and choose to opt out. Think of it as an insurance policy.

-Ralph-

25-01-12, 09:23 PM

Biker Biggles

25-01-12, 09:32 PM

Slight derail but the benefits cap issue is a very lively one.Yes its ludicrous that being on benefits can and does make a lot of people better off than working,but the main driver behind this madness is housing costs.A huge proportion of the benefits goes towards paying rent,mainly to private landlords who make a fortune out of the state.The current government is trying to address this by simply squeezing those on housing benefit,whereas the right policy would be to impose a statutory fair rent system.Strangely enough we used to have just that,abolished by Thatchers government I think.

squirrel_hunter

25-01-12, 09:43 PM

The suggestion that people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them is ludicrous. Apply that principal universally and half societies round the world where children live in poverty would have died out. Some people are not maternal or paternal and choose not to, but having children is human nature and it's what maintains humanity and creates the next generation come what may. You can't put a price on life and children are not a lifestyle choice, they are an absolute necessity for the continuation of the society they are born into. If nobody had them there wouldn't be a society. The only time it's a lifestyle choice, is when you choose not to have them, and as I've said already your damn lucky other people do, because they will be funding the society that support you when you get old, infirm and need lots of healthcare and support, when you won't have your own kids to look after you.

It is a choice to have children as much as it is a choice not to have children, human nature or not. Obviously without children society would die out, but that does not mean that everybody should breed. This is starting to look a little extreme as I doubt very much that by removing CB no one will have children and society will end.

DJFridge

25-01-12, 10:00 PM

I don't personally think that child benefit should be paid to persons earning over X, which is why I'm not moaning about loosing it. I thought about it and concluded, well fair enough, it's not like I'm the most needy recipient of those funds.

Fair enough, I pretty much agree with that

I also don't agree with some families on benefits 'earning' more than working families, so I think the cap that was proposed is a very good idea. You are entitled to your child benefit, until such time as you hit a benefit cap. Stops the 'breeding for benefits'.

Yup, that too.

I do think however that people in genuine financial difficulty, for genuine reasons, such as Stark who stays at home to look after his children because nursery fees are more than he would earn, should be supported by society in the form of a benefit to look after his children. His living costs are higher, and his children would suffer if they lost a grand per child off the household income.

Don't know the ins and outs but it probably sounds fair enough.

The suggestion that people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them is ludicrous. Apply that principal universally and half societies round the world where children live in poverty would have died out. Some people are not maternal or paternal and choose not to, but having children is human nature and it's what maintains humanity and creates the next generation come what may. You can't put a price on life and children are not a lifestyle choice, they are an absolute necessity for the continuation of the society they are born into. If nobody had them there wouldn't be a society. The only time it's a lifestyle choice, is when you choose not to have them, and as I've said already your damn lucky other people do, because they will be funding the society that support you when you get old, infirm and need lots of healthcare and support, when you won't have your own kids to look after you.

Sorry -Ralph- but there you are wrong (don't care what your signature says!!). Of course it isn't ludicrous. It's perfectly rational and sensible and actually is so basic that it's almost above and separate from the whole Benefits argument. Go back a hundred years or so to a time when you had seven children because a) there was a good chance of 4 or 5 of them not surviving past 6 months and b) even if contraception was available and you understood it, the good book says it's your sacred duty to populate the earth. Then, yes, it would be ludicrous, but not now and not here.

Those societies you mention, where poverty is rife, are still in that catch22. They have to breed like rabbits to ensure the survival of their family but the more kids they have, the less they have to feed them with. And/or they believe they have a sacred duty to have as many children as possible.

Population growth is one of the biggest problems currently facing the planet -it isn't a lot but, seeing as we are in a society that CAN afford to average out at 2 kids per couple, surely anything that encourages that is at least a good start.

-Ralph-

25-01-12, 10:01 PM

It is a choice to have children as much as it is a choice not to have children, human nature or not. Obviously without children society would die out, but that does not mean that everybody should breed. This is starting to look a little extreme as I doubt very much that by removing CB no one will have children and society will end.

Did I say that remove CB and society will end?

No, I simply said that children (indeed a critical mass of children or you end up with the ageing population issues we supposedly already have) are essential to the function and continuation of society. For that reason I believe that society should support and assist people who wish to have children.

We don't need to remove CB to solve the breeding for benefits problem either.

-Ralph-

25-01-12, 10:10 PM

DJ Fridge - I don't believe I am wrong, in fact I believe you are wrong in thinking our society can afford an average of 2 kids. The world may have a population issue, the UK does not. Furthermore, reducing population in the UK, will not help population issues elsewhere in the world.

The UK has an ageing population issue, whereby the benefits of modern society mean people are living longer, leaving it later to have children, and having fewer children. This leaves us in a position where we don't have enough people working and paying tax, to adequately support the elderly, and we have a lot of elderly people who are now living in poverty. That trend is not sustainable and the more people choose not to have children, for selfish reasons of not wanting to be tied down, and wanting to be able to afford more holidays, the worse that situation is going to get. Do you know whether the UK will have the money to give you a state pension when you retire?

Sorry, but society NEEDS kids.

squirrel_hunter

25-01-12, 10:12 PM

Did I say that remove CB and society will end?

No, I simply said that children (indeed a critical mass of children or you end up with the ageing population issues we supposedly already have) are essential to the function and continuation of society. For that reason I believe that society should support and assist people who wish to have children.

We don't need to remove CB to solve the breeding for kids problem either.

My bad. I thus have no idea how that example fits into a discussion on Child Benefit. Luckily I think DJFridge has examined those points raised better than I can.

MisterTommyH

25-01-12, 10:13 PM

Society needs kids that will grow up, get an education, get a job and contribute. Simply having kids is not enough.......and I'm sorry but kids that come from families where both parents have never worked, and have had 11 kids to pass the time are not going to have the best role models to encourage them to fulfill that need.

-Ralph-

25-01-12, 10:23 PM

punyXpress

25-01-12, 10:31 PM

First child = 1 testicle removed ?
And so on, but I suppose the problem is . . . !st find the father.

Bri w

25-01-12, 10:40 PM

First child = 1 testicle removed ?
And so on, but I suppose the problem is . . . !st find the father.

At least that would have stopped us having 6.

Bibio

25-01-12, 11:20 PM

and I'm sorry but kids that come from families where both parents have never worked, and have had 11 kids to pass the time are not going to have the best role models to encourage them to fulfill that need.

that has to be the biggest load of bull i have read in this thread.

most kids from big family's in deprived areas cant wait to get the feck out and make a go of it. some of the hardest working people i know are the type you have just mentioned.

-Ralph-

25-01-12, 11:22 PM

that has to be the biggest load of bull i have read in this thread.

most kids from big family's in deprived areas cant wait to get the feck out and make a go of it. some of the hardest working people i know are the type you have just mentioned.

Scots are fighters though Bib ;)

Bibio

25-01-12, 11:31 PM

Scots are fighters though Bib ;)

suppose i have rose tinted specs on as i have no idea what it's like down south in large places like Manchester etc.etc. so Tommy might well be right.

in my defence i don't like people assuming anything about people because of their upbringing.

454697819

25-01-12, 11:50 PM

I also pay a fortune in tax but don't see I have a right to something when the country is struggling. If anything I'd accept a rise in income tax if it meant pulling this country out of the mess its in.

But to ask the question why should you and 1000's of others be taking out of the pot when the pot is struggling to cope?

Bri,

ask yourself why am I paying now to clear up other generations mess, the reason the pot is in a mess??
Why is it fair you got to claim CB and I won't he able too?
This whole thing has been blown out control, the point of my rant has been missed and people are taking sides?

Put it this way your boss says, hey in 6 months you can have another grand a year how does that sound? Great huh..to be told 6 months later no you can't have it! There is nothing you can do because you weren't entittled to it, but it would have been nice wouldn't it.

That's what I am trying to get at.

I was just a bit ****ed off that afterall I have chipped in, the syfatem changes and I cannot what I thought I might be able to claim, don't think a little rant is to much to deny me without accusing me of trying to take from a strugggling pot which is no fault of mine....

Clear as mud?

Good

MisterTommyH

26-01-12, 12:15 AM

Absolutely true and I think everyone on the thread agrees that something needs to be done to combat that problem.

Obviously not.

that has to be the biggest load of bull i have read in this thread.

most kids from big family's in deprived areas cant wait to get the feck out and make a go of it. some of the hardest working people i know are the type you have just mentioned.

Not my experience, but I'm willing to accept that it may just be that and not truly representative. Either way my point was that Ralphs statement about us needing more kids to look after the aging population only works if those kids become productive citizens and not a drain on society (whatever their background). That better? ;)

Tim in Belgium

26-01-12, 12:19 AM

Made it to page 6, had a few chuckles along the way then gave up.

So in a nutshell who is still allowed to have kids? And is it £50/w, £50/mth, or £50/lifetime they receive?

Bibio

26-01-12, 12:20 AM

Tim in Belgium

26-01-12, 12:27 AM

Just a crude assessment of statistics, personally I think anyone on benefits should be on a lower income than the mean. The mean of what though is a good question. And benefits should not go towards personal wealth accumulation.

Why are housing/utilities/etc costs so high...???

PS I am not an economist and the above view may be factually and fictionally incorrect.

grimey121uk

26-01-12, 12:50 AM

it just goes to show the type of incompetence of the people running this country when they put things like this new CB farce into action. it's completely unfair.

i don't understand why this country has a problem with high earners and penalise them at every opportunity. why should someone earning £100k pay a higher tax than someone earning £40k. income tax should be set across the board at earners over the £40k mark and it should be 30% while earners under £40k should be 20% and earners under £10 should be 0%. if someone is earning £100k then they are already paying more tax by earning more.

WHERE IS ALL THE MONEY GOING is what i want to know.

Totally agree, One of my friends was ranting on about how wrong it was that premiership footballs received child tax credit (I don't know if this is true or not?). At the end of the day Wayne Rooney will pay over 30k a week in income tax alone yet people are upset when he gets 20quid a week back from the government but you have to bear in mind what does he get back from the government for paying so much tax, nothing he wont even use the NHS for instance.

We live in a society in which the more you contribute the less you get back.

In my book people need to take responsibility for their actions, if you cant afford kids don't have any and if you do have kids knowing that you are unable to support them you are an unfit parent who should have your kids taken off you.

"I have a right to have children but everyone else should be forced to look after them"

Strange how people think more of pet dogs than they do of humans, for instance if someone was to get a dog and they didn't feed it properly and didn't nurture it properly they would be seen as cruel and unfit to have a dog, yet when someone does the same with a human no one cares as the parents "have a right to children".

-Ralph-

26-01-12, 02:00 AM

So in a nutshell who is still allowed to have kids?

:smt046

Unless your a higher rate taxpayer, don't even think about it you irresponsible scrounger! ;)

-Ralph-

26-01-12, 02:14 AM

In my book people need to take responsibility for their actions, if you cant afford kids don't have any and if you do have kids knowing that you are unable to support them you are an unfit parent who should have your kids taken off you.

Can I ask the criteria which you need to meet to be able to afford kids and be able to support them?

Shelter - I'd agree it's a bit irresponsible if you have nowhere to live

Warmth - If you have somewhere to live, then you can probably manage to heat it, even if it's just one room

Food & Water - Breast milk, followed by whatever you eat mashed up, followed by whatever you eat

Love - Yep, kids need that

Care & Attention - You need to want the best for them, you need to educate them, you need to spend time with them

Clothes - the charity shop sells lots

Other than those what else does a child need? What is it exactly that makes parents who live in poverty irresponsible and non-deserving of the joy a child brings?

Yes, many years ago I was raising a six month old baby in what would be considered poverty, in a bedsit, with no central heating just an electric fire, and not much more than that listed above, rent paid, council tax paid, but other than that living on about 50 quid a week. As life panned out I left his mother when he was 5 or 6 years old, but he was a happy and well balanced child who knew right from wrong and was good with his reading and writing.

Not that much different to my 4 year old son today who wants for nothing. Funny that, because up to the same point in life, the same person educated them both. :rolleyes:

Bluefish

26-01-12, 04:05 AM

Well I blame the parents, has this thread got to the end yet? :(

Fallout

26-01-12, 07:36 AM

Well I blame the parents, has this thread got to the end yet? :(

No it's the teachers fault! Parents can't be expected to bring up their own kids. :rolleyes:

Messie

26-01-12, 07:54 AM

Oi leave us out of it! ;)

dizzyblonde

26-01-12, 08:31 AM

Jeeeeez I'm gonnna take all your CB benefits away for arguing like children!!!! :smt046

DJ The world may have a population issue, the UK does not. Furthermore, reducing population in the UK, will not help population issues elsewhere in the world.

.

Yes we do......if we fill up our country with people from abroad...who are apparently allowed here because the live in the EU, or aren't because they came illegally.....which IS FACT, we didn't have as much issue prior to this floodgate opening. If they all fecked off home by force, it will reduce the population of the UK. :p Round em all up and shove em on a big cruise ship....preferably one that capsizes down a plughole! There....thats sorted it, reduce population of UK....and the world!

WHERE IS ALL THE MONEY GOING is what i want to know.

To our vaastly overpopulated, and unsustainable population. Resources are drained, the NHS collapsing, other services bulging under the strain.
Look at teachers, they now need to be able to speak 15 different languages because at least 15 kids can't speak English in our classes. They have to seek more funding, to fund translators, and special teachers to give extra English tutoring.

Can you tell I got out of the wrong side of the bed :lol:

Why should I be told I have to cap the amount of kids I have, when I have the right to have them? All because some person on here, who doesn't have kids, tells me I can't?

-Ralph-

26-01-12, 08:37 AM

Round em all up and shove em on a big cruise ship....preferably one that capsizes down a plughole! There....thats sorted it, reduce population of UK....and the world!

Along with all the irresponsible parents who had kids when they struggled a bit for money. Maybe that'll sort the 3 year adoption wait for all the rich families that want to have kids. :p

SoulKiss

26-01-12, 08:38 AM

Oi leave us out of it! ;)

He said "teachers" Messie, not "teacers".

:)

Fallout

26-01-12, 08:41 AM

If they all fecked off home by force, it will reduce the population of the UK. :p Round em all up and shove em on a big cruise ship....preferably one that capsizes down a plughole! There....thats sorted it, reduce population of UK....and the world!

I think that could be the most offensive thing ever written on an internet forum since the internet was invented back in 1732. The BMP are adjusting their predicted election results as we speak. :p

He said "teachers" Messie, not "teacers".

:)

I'm sure that's just an accent/pronunciation thing. ;)

dizzyblonde

26-01-12, 08:42 AM

Along with all the irresponsible parents who had kids when they struggled a bit for money. Maybe that'll sort the 3 year adoption wait for all the rich families that want to have kids. :p

Hey......maybe they could buy them with all the money they have! New adoption rules! You must be a top tax payer, instead of taxation you can buy your kids....that way you don't have to go through 'too posh to push' either ;)

....and before anyone starts, this is a joke, I am fully aware that some people can't physically have children......from personal experience of my own!

-Ralph-

26-01-12, 08:49 AM

:lol:

fADr-rIIC78

dizzyblonde

26-01-12, 08:51 AM

I think that could be the most offensive thing ever written on an internet forum since the internet was invented back in 1732. The BMP are adjusting their predicted election results as we speak. :p

Thats b N p;)

Did you not get the ever so large hint of sarcasm? On second thoughts, its very likely that someone else was dying to write it......but are tooo scared to, because of the fluffy bunny, tree hugging, wrapped up in cotton wool PC brigade and their condescending posts to counteract it!

-Ralph-

26-01-12, 09:01 AM

Hey......maybe they could buy them with all the money they have! New adoption rules!

Would they be hip scored, eye scored, inoculated, wormed and treated for lice before they were delivered? How would we display them so people can go choose? Cages don't quite sound right. Would the adoption centre take them back if it didn't work out for you?

dizzyblonde

26-01-12, 09:04 AM

Display? Oh thats easy......

....glass box.....think about it ;)

That way, selection would be made easy, and all rejects can be thrown in the capsized ship, along with all the other rejects of our 'now perfect society'!

Fallout

26-01-12, 09:06 AM

Thats b N p;)

Did you not get the ever so large hint of sarcasm? On second thoughts, its very likely that someone else was dying to write it......but are tooo scared to, because of the fluffy bunny, tree hugging, wrapped up in cotton wool PC brigade and their condescending posts to counteract it!

Don't worry dizz. I got it. ;) Was hoping my slightly inaccurate claim that the internet was founded in 1732 might've given that away. :p And obviously I was talking about the British Muppet Party ........

All the smilies in the world can't get across a sense of humour properly, right? Maybe we should invent an audio forum, where it's just a series of mic recordings so we can hear each other properly, including your scathing racism ... I mean jovial sense of humour. :smt043

-Ralph-

26-01-12, 09:10 AM

I like your thinking Dizzy. You could have a sliding shutter over the air holes in the glass, like those ones on BBQ's and fires to let you regulate the air flow. That way if you got one that was a bit hyper, you could just adjust the oxygen flow and calm them down a bit 5 minutes before a posh Mummy-to-be comes in for a look.

dizzyblonde

26-01-12, 09:15 AM

Was hoping my slightly inaccurate claim that the internet was founded in 1732 might've given that away. :p And obviously I was talking about the British Muppet Party ........

Precisely, so, do you think my draconian but modern, 'fit for all selfish' policies will catch on? :p

Fallout

26-01-12, 09:21 AM

Dizzy, I think you are the true voice of the people. If you need help running for world domination, I'm in. :D

Bibio

26-01-12, 10:13 AM

Dizzy, I think you are the true voice of the people. If you need help running for world domination, I'm in. :D

that would get my vote. but i think dizzy is into other kinds of domination :smt079 to be concerned about world domination.

runs and hides :help:

dizzyblonde

26-01-12, 10:16 AM

that would get my vote. but i think dizzy is into other kinds of domination :smt079 to be concerned about world domination.

runs and hides :help:

Careful Lance, I might just put your nuts in vice, along with the others mwuahahahahahahaaaaaaa!

Bri w

26-01-12, 10:33 AM

Bri,

ask yourself why am I paying now to clear up other generations mess, the reason the pot is in a mess??
Why is it fair you got to claim CB and I won't he able too?
This whole thing has been blown out control, the point of my rant has been missed and people are taking sides?

Put it this way your boss says, hey in 6 months you can have another grand a year how does that sound? Great huh..to be told 6 months later no you can't have it! There is nothing you can do because you weren't entittled to it, but it would have been nice wouldn't it.

That's what I am trying to get at.

I was just a bit ****ed off that afterall I have chipped in, the syfatem changes and I cannot what I thought I might be able to claim, don't think a little rant is to much to deny me without accusing me of trying to take from a strugggling pot which is no fault of mine....

Clear as mud?

Good

I totally understand the unfairness of it, i.e. last year you would have got it and next year you won't.

4 years ago 'we' were in a boom, so quite how its the blame of past generations I'm not sure.

Is it fair I got it and you won't? My youngest is coming 23yrs old, and we were getting CB when I was a lowly paid technician. Were we irresponsible in having 6 children? They're split across two marriages, and not all mine(biologically).

The point I was making is where is your community spirit? You are in the higher tax bracket but feel the state owes you for having children even though the state is struggling financially. If the state as a business was succeeding then I wouldn't have a problem with CB, and would dearly like to see fully funded university education again(which I also benefited from).

-Ralph-

26-01-12, 10:54 AM

My youngest is coming 23yrs old, and we were getting CB when I was a lowly paid technician. Were we irresponsible in having 6 children?

That's what some of the people in this thread simply don't understand Bri, and as a lot of them are not parents, or have never experienced any hardship in their lives, they never will do.

Money has got absolutely nothing to do with your ability to be a good parent, and raise good kids.

Dicky Ticker

26-01-12, 10:58 AM

Before all this existed all you had was a bit of family allowance[A fixed sum for each child and a whole lot less than this family credit figures] and a lot less money as wages so I considered the size of my family to what I could afford.From the age of 10 mine were given the family allowance told it was their clothing allowance to teach them the respect for money and clothes----never did them any harm and seemed to stop the I want the designer label thing.

If you can't afford kids without any form of government subsidy,even as the then family allowance perhaps you should have given the matter a bit more thought before having them

dizzyblonde

26-01-12, 10:59 AM

I think Family Allowance is Child Benefit, they changed the name thats all IIRC.

Whats designers labels? None of them in this house....and my kids are well dressed without such :D

punyXpress

26-01-12, 11:01 AM

WHERE IS ALL THE MONEY GOING is what i want to know.

Most of it to pay for the previous lot's borrowing.
Why did GB have to borrow so much when he was already taxing us so much?

Bibio

26-01-12, 11:07 AM

to be a good parent...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4p8qxGbpOk

money helps but it's not the be all and end all. but today's society dictates that it is which is a sad state of affairs.

-Ralph-

26-01-12, 11:32 AM

Following my experience in that bedsit, I put off having kids for years because I thought I couldn't afford them. What a mistake that was. It was followed by 7 years of fertility problems, during which time we've tried for children constantly and been able to have one, whereas we would have liked two or three. I'm now going to be paying out thousands of pounds in IVF treatment. I should have just had the kids we wanted when my wife and I were younger. Some people on this thread haven't got a f**king clue about what's important in life because it sure as hell isn't money.

dizzyblonde

26-01-12, 11:56 AM

To each and every person that comes through my door I say this...

'Until you hold that baby in your arms, you haven't a clue what life is about'

There are those who come here, and say they are put off because of what they see here with my kids....namely tantrums before bedtime, answering back, me shouting etc etc and don't fancy children of their own.

They haven't a clue!

Nor have those who have actually taken on others kids as their own sometimes. Until 'your' kid is born, your eyes are shut to life, you are just a spectator.

Ralph, I have been pregnant four times. I have two kids. I have miscarried twice, one of which was taken away by surgery. My first son is special, as my pregnancy was difficult. My second son is even more special, as my pregnancy was even more difficult, and ended up being dangerous... the night I was forced to have Oli, was the night Pete thought he was to lose both of us. There are so many different reasons for them being 10 years apart.

Children are a gift, nobody has a right to say who should, or shouldn't have them.

You could have all the money in the world, and be a sh1te parent, you could be all hippy, with weird ideals, and expect to bring your child up in some weird contorted way.....usually twisting the poor kids melon in the long run, you could be the most intelligent person in the world, pretencious ar$ehole.....anybody really.

They're still a gift.

-Ralph-

26-01-12, 12:12 PM

Sorry to hear that Dizz. Sandrine's had a few miscarriages too, I do understand what that is like.

Children are a gift, nobody has a right to say who should, or shouldn't have them

Probably the truest 14 words posted on this thread so far.

And spending years telling my wife she couldn't have a kid because we couldn't afford it 'yet' is the stupidest thing I've ever done. Just as we managed in the bedsit, when we had to whip the wet baby straight out of the bath and through to the fire in the main room, because the bathroom was too cold, we'd have managed again, and if that meant child benefit was a critical part my family finances, so be it. I'm paying it back to society now for sure. I'm about to get an £8400 bill for stamp duty for feck's sake! That's paid 8 years worth of child benefit back into the public pot in one go!

dizzyblonde

26-01-12, 12:24 PM

Sorry to hear that Dizz. Sandrine's had a few miscarriages too, I do understand what that is like.

Probably the truest 14 words posted on this thread so far.

And spending years telling my wife she couldn't have a kid because we couldn't afford it 'yet' is the stupidest thing I've ever done. Just as we managed in the bedsit, when we had to whip the wet baby straight out of the bath and through to the fire in the main room, because the bathroom was too cold, we'd have managed again, and if that meant child benefit was a critical part my family finances, so be it. I'm paying it back to society now for sure.

many moons ago Ralph, I have two lovely boys now :D

Oh I certainly know that conversation, it comes up in a whole manner of different versions of words! I spent five years in my previous relationship making sure I couldn't get pregnant, because that sort of thing rang through my head if I thought about it too long :((plus I was led to believe he didn't want them) For someone who has difficulty keeping kids in pregnancy, keeping yourself from having them doesn't feel nice after a while.

Myself and Pete would love to have more children. For the moment, our home is full, we aren't well off either BUT the important thing about our decision is not either of those things, its the fact that Pete doesn't want me to be put through what could be even worse next time.

Bri w

26-01-12, 12:34 PM

I'm paying it back to society now for sure. I'm about to get an £8400 bill for stamp duty for feck's sake! That's paid 8 years worth of child benefit back into the public pot in one go!

That's gonna be some house for the org house warming party!!

I'm with you on the paying it back Col. My income tax this tax year, to date, is 'interesting' to say the least.

-Ralph-

26-01-12, 12:50 PM

I'm with you on the paying it back Col. My income tax this tax year, to date, is 'interesting' to say the least.

Aye, maybe when you're in the hospital tell them you want your own nurse 24/7 'cos you've paid her salary in income tax.

No don't do that, that would be 'anti-society'.

;) :lol:

Fallout

26-01-12, 03:03 PM

'Until you hold that baby in your arms, you haven't a clue what life is about'

That's really inspirational to me Dizz. As a bit of a nihilist, I don't really get the point of anything at all, but I have a feeling when I'm finally a Dad, that won't matter any more. I really long for it, to be honest, but it's money that's stopping us. I'm too responsible to have a kid when I know can't afford one.

Cheers for your story, and to everyone else babbling on about their loin produce. I always like to hear about peoples struggles and success stories with kids. Makes me think about my future and motivates me, cos we're running out of time here.

dizzyblonde

26-01-12, 03:25 PM

#embarrassed smile#

I'll tell you the secret.... everyone has a dormant braincell called 'the bigger picture'. baby flicks the switch on when it pops out ;)

Fallout

26-01-12, 03:30 PM

I tell ya what, the ONLY thing that scares me about having a kid is the finances. I have this vision of me working in a job I absolutely hate (because I essentially hate 99% of jobs :D) to afford the wee blighter. Would it be possible for the mrs to get preggers, take 1 day off to have the baby, then return to full time work straight afterwards?

I am willing to learn how to lactate.

dizzyblonde

26-01-12, 03:39 PM

Where there is a will there is a way!

Its as cheap or as expensive as you want to make it with children.
You don't need the most up to date named trainers, you can shop at Asda for clothes, you do get good clothes as hand me downs off the sister in law, and toys, that you once had for son number one, which have done the rounds and come back again! :D

You do have to put them first over a night out with yer mates, you are under the thumb and what yer missus says goes ;)

lactating always welcome.....feeding by moob is as painful as feeding by boob!!

Fallout

26-01-12, 03:57 PM

Good advice Dizz. I reckon when I finally get a job I am half happy in, and know I can stick at for a few years without going completely mad, we'll get to work on a littlun. The Mrs says she'd happily go back to work and let me look after the babe and that's fine with me. He'll be strapped to the handle bars of the SV and taught to catch flies from the age of 2 months.

Damn, I'm gonna be a good Dad! :D

-Ralph-

26-01-12, 04:23 PM

Errm, may I just point out that we have scientifically proven that there is nothing wrong with the produce of my loins! In fact the words that left the doctors mouth were 'terrorist organisation'. May I also confirm that it's the first and only time me having a w*nk has been part of a scientific experiment! I looks like I may have to do it again in future however. :lol: ;-)

Bri w

26-01-12, 04:27 PM

May I also confirm that it's the first and only time me having a w*nk has part of a scientific experiment! I looks like I may have to do again in future however. :lol: ;-)

Oh there's so much mileage in this but having seen how stressed a mate was when trying to produce, and how broke he was after IVF, I'll give you a pass.

And good luck

-Ralph-

26-01-12, 04:51 PM

Damn, I'm gonna be a good Dad! :D

When you decide you want one mate, you go for it! Contrary to popular modern belief, babies don't cost a fortune. Ebay is your friend, as are your relatives!

In fact the baby itself is free and I've yet to see a baby spend a dollar! It's the parents that spend all the money ;)

Modern society has things all confused when it comes to babies. It thinks buying one of these is essential

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fdOo7oeF5Mo/TThlaFgDnTI/AAAAAAAAAEs/-NvcPgkTgfE/s1600/Avent%2BElectric%2BSterilizer.jpg

When actually this does exactly the same job

http://www.saucepan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/glass-saucepnas.jpg

It also thinks babies need fed on this

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RJR6foFHMbk/TlGi7spwylI/AAAAAAAAAJc/jgB_kd3ThVY/s1600/earth%2527s+best.jpg

When in actual fact they'll be a damn sight healthier if you use that saucepan again, along with a potato masher, and feed them on this (the resulting poo is less toxic too!)

http://www.al7alem.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fruit_vegetables.jpg

And as for these

http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/everyday_life/img/IM.0873_zl.jpg

Yes, you do need those, some cost cutting is just going too far :lol:

Fallout

26-01-12, 05:36 PM

My mrs will buy all that stuff. Mark my words. It's amazing. She's getting milk on the way home today. I GUARANTEE, even though we're trying to save money, she will pick up something expensive. Perhaps a yacht.

As for the pampers, I did suggest sandwich bags lined with tampons in another thread. Maybe?

squirrel_hunter

26-01-12, 06:30 PM

If you can't afford kids without any form of government subsidy,even as the then family allowance perhaps you should have given the matter a bit more thought before having them

Very true.

454697819

26-01-12, 07:07 PM

When you decide you want one mate, you go for it! Contrary to popular modern belief, babies don't cost a fortune. Ebay is your friend, as are your relatives!

In fact the baby itself is free and I've yet to see a baby spend a dollar! It's the parents that spend all the money ;)

Modern society has things all confused when it comes to babies. It thinks buying one of these is essential

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fdOo7oeF5Mo/TThlaFgDnTI/AAAAAAAAAEs/-NvcPgkTgfE/s1600/Avent%2BElectric%2BSterilizer.jpg

When actually this does exactly the same job

http://www.saucepan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/glass-saucepnas.jpg

It also thinks babies need fed on this

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RJR6foFHMbk/TlGi7spwylI/AAAAAAAAAJc/jgB_kd3ThVY/s1600/earth%2527s+best.jpg

When in actual fact they'll be a damn sight healthier if you use that saucepan again, along with a potato masher, and feed them on this (the resulting poo is less toxic too!)

http://www.al7alem.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fruit_vegetables.jpg

And as for these

http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/everyday_life/img/IM.0873_zl.jpg

Yes, you do need those, some cost cutting is just going too far :lol:

we having a free range baby...its living outside, with a warming lamp and some straw... no need for nappies.. (seriously though we going to use terry nappies)

454697819

26-01-12, 07:16 PM

I totally understand the unfairness of it, i.e. last year you would have got it and next year you won't.

4 years ago 'we' were in a boom, so quite how its the blame of past generations I'm not sure.

Is it fair I got it and you won't? My youngest is coming 23yrs old, and we were getting CB when I was a lowly paid technician. Were we irresponsible in having 6 children? They're split across two marriages, and not all mine(biologically).

The point I was making is where is your community spirit? You are in the higher tax bracket but feel the state owes you for having children even though the state is struggling financially. If the state as a business was succeeding then I wouldn't have a problem with CB, and would dearly like to see fully funded university education again(which I also benefited from).

I understand Community spirit to a degree Bri, I want to make it clear, I dont feel the state OWE me.. I am just disappointed I cant claim it when I thought i could, If I thought they owed me I would have used that phrase, or spent time trying to find away to cheat the system, its a rant, a minor whinge, yes I may be in the higher tax bracket, but I am also in the generation of over inflated house prices etc etc, so it doesn't carry perhaps the same exclusivity it might have done 25 years ago....Sure I could sent the wife out to work full time but then thats more money to find when she is off with the bubby...

bottom line is it would be nice but if it doesnt come this way so be it.. it just might have been nice :-)