Child Benefit Rant

[454697819]

Excuse the following Rant

We are now expecting our first bubby,

I have worked and still work exceptionally hard to have got where I am and I am fortunate enough to be in a well paid job because of my efforts.

I have paid my NI for 10 years, and now I actually could really do with a little bit extra from the chancellor they are going to axe it for me, because I have worked feking hard all my life and got where I am, paying a flipping fortune in tax every month.

I haven't relied on this money coming forward, its not in any of my financial plans, but just for once I though I might get a little something back, by the time our bump is here it will have been axed....

add this to the fact that despite that fact I drive an efficient company car, as its not a hybrid, every year they keep fecking me over on the tax too...

This country is falling apart but by bit, and I wish they could see quite how bad they are fuging it up and how consistently they are making dumbass poorly thought out tax polices....

Right..

Time for lunch :smt067

rant over

[Stenno]

I don't really know the ins and outs but I would support any sensible caps on benefits. I think it makes sense that you shouldn't be better off on benefits than you would be working.

A mate of mine who also earns a good wage cancelled his child credits or similar because he felt wrong receiving them on his wages.

The sooner they licence having kids, bringing in a mod 1 & 2 in order to qualify having them, the better.

[daveyrach]

I think it's only Tax Credits being axed if you earn over £40 something thousand a year, child benefit you should get regardless. The house of lords voted to exclude it from the benefit cap yesterday anyway.

I work full time and get child benefit and tax credits.

[daveyrach]

I don't really know the ins and outs but I would support any sensible caps on benefits. I think it makes sense that you shouldn't be better off on benefits than you would be working.

A mate of mine who also earns a good wage cancelled his child credits or similar because he felt wrong receiving them on his wages.

The sooner they licence having kids, bringing in a mod 1 & 2 in order to qualify having them, the better.

You don't get Tax credits or Child Benefit paid directly into your wages, it is paid separately into your bank direct from DWP and HMRC, Tax Credits is weekly, child benefit is monthly.

[hardhat_harry]

I dont see why you should be rewarded for having kids there is too many people in the world as it is.

I've paid NI for over 25 years and still not received any benefits.

[daveyrach]

You should not be rewarded for having kids, hence why i work 40 hour weeks, what i do receive helps but it you can hardly feed 4 kids on it, i chose to have children and work bloody hard to support them, if my benefits get cut then i will just work harder, i certainly won't p**s and moan about it.

[squirrel_hunter]

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.

[Pimp Cat]

Excuse the following Rant
This country is falling apart but by bit, and I wish they could see quite how bad they are fuging it up and how consistently they are making dumbass poorly thought out tax polices....


Its not just the tax polices that are pooly thought out!

But what can you do about it? all the time the main 3 partys are in power and being run by stuck up, private schooled toffs who are so out of touch with 95% of the population nothings going to change.

Look at any of the footage from parliment, 90% of the time its just argueing and taking pot shots at the other side of the room, pointing out mistakes and dissagreeing with each other just cos of what side of the room their sat on regardless of whats actually being talked about.

If they put half as much effort in to working together and comming up with answers / solutions to the problems this country has, it would be almost fixed by now!

As for the state of the finances of this country don't get me started!
there as loads of easy ways to fix the problems they just aint got the balls to do it!

[Fallout]

Good luck with your first born mate. You are wise to budget without taking any benefits into account. They're definitely gonna be changing radically over the next 10 years.

I dont see why you should be rewarded for having kids there is too many people in the world as it is.

I've paid NI for over 25 years and still not received any benefits.

Kind of agree with this though. I think we're at a plateau now where our population could do with levelling out, so having more than 2 kids is unsustainable. People with 2 kids or less should have some support and having more kids should be discouraged. I think a bunch of overpopulated Asian countries use this technique, and then there is China who are far more hardcore.

[Owenski]

£81.20 a month gets paid into our account since having Nate last March, £81.20 a month then gets transferred in a savings account in his name, that should put him through Uni/Buy a car hopefully.
We didnt factor it in to our finances before deciding to have him, we didnt think about it at all tbh.

Dont blame those who dont have kids for thinking "why should I pay for someone elses", Im not too happy that I too am paying for everyone elses cos I sure as hell pay a lot more tax than £82 a month. If you're relying on £82 to be able to afford a kid then you shouldnt be having one. NOT THAT THATS WHAT THE OP IS SAYING>>>

OP,
You'll be pleased to know that as it has been stated the CHB hasnt been axed... yet.

[dizzyblonde]

How many complaining that people shouldn't get CB...............actually have kids of their own?

Do these people actually know how much Child benefit is each month per child?

Put it this way, its hardly likely to buy you anything of any worth.

[timwilky]

For generations we have paid child benefit. At one time only for second and further kids. but currently for all.

At one time it was justified as being the only benefit paid directly to the mother. I know in my wives family with a alcoholic father it was the only money her mum saw to help bring up the kids.

Maybe as a "universal benefit" it has had its day. As many on this thread suggest, why should the state subsides breeding for the sake of income. However, the proposed method used to calculate eligibility is grossly unfair. It should be based on gross family income. Not simply one member being in the higher tax bracket. Effectively you could get a family with a combined income in excess £75,000 eligible whereas their next door neighbour with an income of £42,000 denied the benefit.

[Owenski]

For generations we have paid child benefit. At one time only for second and further kids. but currently for all.

At one time it was justified as being the only benefit paid directly to the mother. I know in my wives family with a alcoholic father it was the only money her mum saw to help bring up the kids.

Maybe as a "universal benefit" it has had its day. As many on this thread suggest, why should the state subsides breeding for the sake of income. However, the proposed method used to calculate eligibility is grossly unfair. It should be based on gross family income. Not simply one member being in the higher tax bracket. Effectively you could get a family with a combined income in excess £75,000 eligible whereas their next door neighbour with an income of £42,000 denied the benefit.

I understand the reasoning behind that.
Generally speaking: Applications are made prior to the birth of the child, however once the child is born there will be one member of the family staying home to look after he/she and this person is most likely to be the lower income earner thus maintaining the max income possible into the home (even if only for the first year or so).
To use your example In the first house where both I assume are earning 37.5k, after birth that household may then be reduced to 1 salary ie 37.5k. Where as next door remain on 42k as the partner who doesnt earn is the one staying home.
This obiouvsly doesnt take into consideration, personal choices/single parents yada yada ydad but it does provide a little logic as contast against the point you made.

[daveyrach]

For our 4 children child benefit is not that much even for 4 children, its £28 for 1st child then £13 for each extra, so in total I get £67 per week, I could live without it but it does help especially, each has their own trust/savings fund and get £20 each per month, so actually we don't see any of it.

[tigersaw]

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.

You get my vote

[punyXpress]

You're nearly there, Tim.
But I sometimes wonder what proportion of Child Benefit is actually spent by the recipients on those children.
Or is most/all of it spent on fags, Sky subs or pi$$ed against the wall?

[454697819]

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.

agreed, I am happy to pay for them but on the other foot, I have been paying towards loads of other child benefit for years, but now I cant claim it..

[SoulKiss]

£81.20 a month gets paid into our account since having Nate last March, £81.20 a month then gets transferred in a savings account in his name, that should put him through Uni/Buy a car hopefully.
We didnt factor it in to our finances before deciding to have him, we didnt think about it at all tbh.

If you dont need it then why should you get it though?

I could argue that by NOT having children I don't put a cost on the system for schooling etc, even the cost of their birth, so I should get £81.20/month as a thank-you for not having spawned.

[454697819]

You're nearly there, Tim.
But I sometimes wonder what proportion of Child Benefit is actually spent by the recipients on those children.
Or is most/all of it spent on fags, Sky subs or pi$$ed against the wall?

anything else you would like to pigeon hole?

[Bri w]

Its avery emotive subject at present, along with benefits in general. There's a lot of hysteria being whipped up by political parties, and others with access to the media/politics like the Bishops/House of Lords.

I'd much rather see Child Benefits remain as they are, although there are a lot of other benefits I'd like seeing drastically hacked... The suggested cap on benefits IMO doesn't go far enough. Full benefits equate to a salary of £35,000... *must not derail the thread*

But can I just add that I would love to see the return of state funded university education but only for 'proper' subjects - "we" must invest in our children. If someone wants an arty farty degree then they fund it either in full or part subsidised.

[dizzyblonde]

Its avery emotive subject at present, along with benefits in general. There's a lot of hysteria being whipped up by political parties, and others with access to the media/politics like the Bishops/House of Lords.

I'd much rather see Child Benefits remain as they are, although there are a lot of other benefits I'd like seeing drastically hacked... The suggested cap on benefits IMO doesn't go far enough. Full benefits equate to a salary of £35,000... *must not derail the thread*

But can I just add that I would love to see the return of state funded university education but only for 'proper' subjects - "we" must invest in our children. If someone wants an arty farty degree then they fund it either in full or part subsidised.

Bri.....we agree on an awful lot of things :)
I shouldn't agree on the degree bit.....but I'm afraid arty fart degrees don't pay wages in reality, mind you neither do proper ones at the moment!

[Fallout]

I lived with a guy who studied Golf Management. That was hilarious. I totally agree with the idea of a system that subsidizes worthwhile degrees and leaves the Golf Management, 4 hours/week students to pay for it themselves. ;)

[maviczap]

I lived with a guy who studied Golf Management. That was hilarious. I totally agree with the idea of a system that subsidizes worthwhile degrees and leaves the Golf Management, 4 hours/week students to pay for it themselves. ;)

Surely the golfing industry could fund this, how much money does this generate a year.

Up the green fees :sunny:

[Owenski]

If you dont need it then why should you get it though?
I dont see a reason why I SHOULD get it, never suggested I feel its fair or warrented. However if you had oportunity to get some tax back would you refuse it?

STATE: Dave - We think you should have £80 a month back pal, is that ok?
DAVE: Na, you lot keep it you need it more than I do.

Its not going to happen is it.

I could argue that by NOT having children I don't put a cost on the system for schooling etc, even the cost of their birth, so I should get £81.20/month as a thank-you for not having spawned.

You could try that argument, but I think you'd have a better stance by arguing that CHB should simply be scrapped because too many people who cant afford kids still are thanks to state funding. Remove the funding remove the likelyhood of these reprebates having kids. Id think you'd get massive support too.

[Fallout]

Surely the golfing industry could fund this, how much money does this generate a year.

Up the green fees :sunny:

I'm sure it could, and I'm sure he could've learnt everything he learnt on that degree in half the time employed at a golf course. Uni's love making money though! Imagine all that tuition fee cash they got for teaching him how to weed a fairway and pull a pint at the 19th?! :D

[Owenski]

But can I just add that I would love to see the return of state funded university education but only for 'proper' subjects - "we" must invest in our children. If someone wants an arty farty degree then they fund it either in full or part subsidised.

Bri.....we agree on an awful lot of things :)
I shouldn't agree on the degree bit.....but I'm afraid arty fart degrees don't pay wages in reality, mind you neither do proper ones at the moment!

Can I ask does an Art Degree count as arty farty?
The wifes head of Art at her school, her degree was sort of critical to that career path. Would it be fair for an Art teacher to have to pay for thier own degree but for a Maths teacher to have had their degree state funded?

You both know me well enough to know I wont begrudge your honest opintions I just couldnt resist the oportunity to be a stickler on a situation what must be the exception to your previous comments.

[squirrel_hunter]

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.

agreed, I am happy to pay for them but on the other foot, I have been paying towards loads of other child benefit for years, but now I cant claim it..

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.

[NTECUK]

Tax creddits and Child bennifit should be there to prevent kids being bought up in poverty.
Not as a means to top up the household income so you can go on holliday etc.

[Bibio]

why should the government pay people child benifit?

to stop bleedin poverty that's why.

it's our lovely governments fault we are in this mess and the cost of living is spiralling out of proportion. if peoples income is not topped up then people will stop having kids so the country will become a wasteland. we need children for the future of our country.

its not benefits that's killing our county it's our governments lack of ability to control what they spend our money on like war for one thing.

blaming benefits is only a ruse to get the general public up in arms and take their minds off other subjects.

but i'm a tin hat person.... :-)

[Bri w]

Can I ask does an Art Degree count as arty farty?
The wifes head of Art at her school, her degree was sort of critical to that career path. Would it be fair for an Art teacher to have to pay for thier own degree but for a Maths teacher to have had their degree state funded?

You both know me well enough to know I wont begrudge your honest opintions I just couldnt resist the oportunity to be a stickler on a situation what must be the exception to your previous comments.

Mmm, good point but I'd count it as arty farty. I know the argument of a civilised society has art, whereas a developing society hasn't the time for luxuries. I guess you can add in a society that can't, financially, afford it. But I didn't say the courses should be dropped, just the funding rejigged.

What can maths be applied to and what can art be applied to? Maths can be used in everything from engineering, all branches of, through to something as simple as a stock check in retail. And art gives us... your missus could fill in the blanks better than me.

I went through uni at a time of full teaching and maint. grants for pretty much everyone, and that's what I'd like to see the return of.

[thefallenangel]

I think you should tax people who have kids. The drain a child has on the state is emmense compared to my drain. Stops the 4/5 kid houses on council estates like my aunts who has now 3 kids with 5 kids between them and more to come.

A birthing tax would put these off unless of course you are earning £15k a year in wages as a household. The intelligent in society are being out breed by the looks of it.

[Biker Biggles]

Just a general point.You have been paying NI and lots of tax for some years,but you have not been paying into a pot to fund your child benefit.You have been paying into the exchequer generally which funds everything from defence to foreign aid and all in between.Now we can all quibble about how that money should be spent and how they waste loads of it,but none of it is specifically paid by you or me for this or that.God forbid you might have a serious accident next week and require hundreds of thousands in medical care,but the rest of us wont moan because you havnt paid in enough to cover it.Its called society,what Thatcher said she didnt believe in as it didnt exist.

[Luckypants]

On a general note, I do not believe Child Benefit should be universal, but should still be paid to those on lower incomes. It was quite useful when the kids were small and I didn't earn much, it occasionally paid for shopping or something when we were skint. However because I had a degree (paid for by Government) my salary increased quite quickly and we no longer needed child benefit but it was nice to have. By the time the then wife went back to work we definitely should not have been getting it, we were quite comfortable by then.

[Bibio]

Just a general point.You have been paying NI and lots of tax for some years,but you have not been paying into a pot to fund your child benefit.You have been paying into the exchequer generally which funds everything from defence to foreign aid and all in between.Now we can all quibble about how that money should be spent and how they waste loads of it,but none of it is specifically paid by you or me for this or that.God forbid you might have a serious accident next week and require hundreds of thousands in medical care,but the rest of us wont moan because you havnt paid in enough to cover it.Its called society,what Thatcher said she didnt believe in as it didnt exist.

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[EssexDave]

What irritates me is for single parents.

Two adults can live together, and earn £80kpa (40k each) and get child benefit.

One parent living alone can earn £48k and not get the benefit.

[hardhat_harry]

I think you should tax people who have kids. The drain a child has on the state is emmense compared to my drain. Stops the 4/5 kid houses on council estates like my aunts who has now 3 kids with 5 kids between them and more to come.

A birthing tax would put these off unless of course you are earning £15k a year in wages as a household. The intelligent in society are being out breed by the looks of it.

+1

Eventually we will reach a more sustainable population.

[Bri w]

What irritates me is for single parents.

Two adults can live together, and earn £80kpa (40k each) and get child benefit.

One parent living alone can earn £48k and not get the benefit.

I can understand the unfairness in that but should anyone earning £48k be getting it anyway?

[Fallout]

All this 'birth tax' and 'stop benefit to reduce births' chat doesn't really work. All that will do is stop intelligent people from having kids; ya know, the sort that will actually bring them up properly. The thick sods who pop babies out willy nilly and think condoms are just for making inflatable animals will carry on regardless. Their kids come from irresponsibility, rather than poor planning.

I believe there should be means-tested child benefit, with a good benefit for child 1, a small benefit for child 2 and then a benefit penalty for further children. And he's a really controversial idea: a reward (£1000 maybe) for sterilization surgery. Blokes get their tubes tied and women get their tubes tied and get paid for it, after 2 kids.

Only a minority of the population can be trusted to handle their own contraception. I reckon in the short term, that'd save the government a lot of money on welfare, child benefit etc. and in the long run, reducing our overpopulation problem will ease pressure on infrastructure, solve the housing crisis (we won't need any more new homes with a stable population), spiralling food costs, pollution and many other things.

The only negative I can see is how it may affect growth, but this idea that we need to grow to survive is unsustainable anyway. Eventually we're going to have to say enough is enough, so it may as well be now.

[Biker Biggles]

All this 'birth tax' and 'stop benefit to reduce births' chat doesn't really work. All that will do is stop intelligent people from having kids; ya know, the sort that will actually bring them up properly. The thick sods who pop babies out willy nilly and think condoms are just for making inflatable animals will carry on regardless. Their kids come from irresponsibility, rather than poor planning.

I believe there should be means-tested child benefit, with a good benefit for child 1, a small benefit for child 2 and then a benefit penalty for further children. And he's a really controversial idea: a reward (£1000 maybe) for sterilization surgery. Blokes get their tubes tied and women get their tubes tied and get paid for it, after 2 kids.

Only a minority of the population can be trusted to handle their own contraception. I reckon in the short term, that'd save the government a lot of money on welfare, child benefit etc. and in the long run, reducing our overpopulation problem will ease pressure on infrastructure, solve the housing crisis (we won't need any more new homes with a stable population), spiralling food costs, pollution and many other things.

The only negative I can see is how it may affect growth, but this idea that we need to grow to survive is unsustainable anyway. Eventually we're going to have to say enough is enough, so it may as well be now.

Radical stuff,and all true,but the economic system to make that work hasnt been invented yet.Maybe it will invent itself as the current one implodes.

[yorkie_chris]

I think you should tax people who have kids. The drain a child has on the state is emmense compared to my drain. Stops the 4/5 kid houses on council estates like my aunts who has now 3 kids with 5 kids between them and more to come.

A birthing tax would put these off unless of course you are earning £15k a year in wages as a household. The intelligent in society are being out breed by the looks of it.

The fairly logical reality of "if you can't feed em don't breed em" is not accepted by the DSS underclass.

A relative of a friend has 3 kids, from 2 different dolescum, multiple conviction waste of skin oxygen thieves. I see no solution to this other than some sort of temporary sterilisation when on benefits and a firm but fair approach, get convicted of burglary/TWOC/dealing 3 times and get taken out the back of the courthouse and shot.

[Owenski]

Mmm, good point but I'd count it as arty farty. I know the argument of a civilised society has art, whereas a developing society hasn't the time for luxuries. I guess you can add in a society that can't, financially, afford it. But I didn't say the courses should be dropped, just the funding rejigged.

What can maths be applied to and what can art be applied to? Maths can be used in everything from engineering, all branches of, through to something as simple as a stock check in retail. And art gives us... your missus could fill in the blanks better than me.

I went through uni at a time of full teaching and maint. grants for pretty much everyone, and that's what I'd like to see the return of.

Good you took it as I intended, oddly enough despite our marital bond my thoughts echo yours. Her qualification is IMO useless as is the subject she teaches. We cannot learn from Art we cannot use it to develop / progess humanity despite that its insisted that 2hours a week our kids are educated about it.

Been brutally honest I dont see the point in learning about Art IMO its a hobby. Should someone have interest in it then they should investigate it in thier own time. Our schools would be much better off with studies like "Autoshop" like they do in the states. Routine maintenance or even a lesson living skills, lessons on budgeting and running a house would be better uses of that 2hr slot.

[Owenski]

The fairly logical reality of "if you can't feed em don't breed em" is not accepted by the DSS underclass.

A relative of a friend has 3 kids, from 2 different dolescum, multiple conviction waste of skin oxygen thieves. I see no solution to this other than some sort of temporary sterilisation when on benefits and a firm but fair approach, get convicted of burglary/TWOC/dealing 3 times and get taken out the back of the courthouse and shot.

I think (maybe with you) I've had this very convo recently.
IE: Collection of Dole/Benifit is part of a sterilisation session, take the jab collect the cheque. That way if you're already requiring state financial aid then you'll at least you'll be unable to cause further burden of having children.

The prison thing is brilliant though, get convicted of a serious offence and have you're ability to breed removed... That gets my vote 100%

[dizzyblonde]

why should the government pay people child benifit?

to stop bleedin poverty that's why.

it's our lovely governments fault we are in this mess and the cost of living is spiralling out of proportion. if peoples income is not topped up then people will stop having kids so the country will become a wasteland. we need children for the future of our country.

its not benefits that's killing our county it's our governments lack of ability to control what they spend our money on like war for one thing.

blaming benefits is only a ruse to get the general public up in arms and take their minds off other subjects.

but i'm a tin hat person.... :-)

See, I'm in the tin hat gang tooo.......shame the blinkered amongst us are too ignorant to see whats really happening;)

Can I ask does an Art Degree count as arty farty?
The wifes head of Art at her school, her degree was sort of critical to that career path. Would it be fair for an Art teacher to have to pay for thier own degree but for a Maths teacher to have had their degree state funded?

You both know me well enough to know I wont begrudge your honest opintions I just couldnt resist the oportunity to be a stickler on a situation what must be the exception to your previous comments.

Well, when I was young, I had the choice of which way I wished to go , English Language or Art.....I chose the Art degree option, and gave up in the first year, as it was heading in the direction I didn't like, so chose a different path in life. Mainly buy house, have family.
Art degrees are I'm afraid are arty farty, no matter what you end up doing, see thing is, its full of a-holes that are there for the bum life, and occasionally there are those who actually wish to use it for a career. Pretencious pillocks are many,.....they deserve to cough up:smt120

What irritates me is for single parents.

Two adults can live together, and earn £80kpa (40k each) and get child benefit.

One parent living alone can earn £48k and not get the benefit.

I'm one for the single brigade, been there done that, hard enough without being penalised more for being single and holding down a job!

[EssexDave]

I can understand the unfairness in that but should anyone earning £48k be getting it anyway?

That gives you £2.24kpm income (roughly)

Rent £800
Food £300
Gas/electric/water etc £150
hairdressing/dentist/opticians £20
Car insurance/tax/maintenance £100
Travel to work etc £1-300pm

that could all add up to £15-1700. Quite easy for it all to diminish.

My personal opinion is if you can't afford kids, don't have them. Maybe harsh but as someone has said, the stupid are outbreeding the intelligent and skilled. It leads to a system where the topheavy part are the scroungers being supported by the hard workers. Does not work.

[Owenski]

That gives you £2.24kpm income (roughly)

Rent £800
Food £300
Gas/electric/water etc £150
hairdressing/dentist/opticians £20
Car insurance/tax/maintenance £100
Travel to work etc £1-300pm

that could all add up to £15-1700. Quite easy for it all to diminish.

My personal opinion is if you can't afford kids, don't have them. Maybe harsh but as someone has said, the stupid are outbreeding the intelligent and skilled. It leads to a system where the topheavy part are the scroungers being supported by the hard workers. Does not work.

Dont forget £600+ per month for nursey fee's

Only reason we could afford a baby is because Abi's parernts agreed to care for him/her for 2days out of 5. Abi's on 4 days weeks so it only leaves 2 days of Nursery care costing us over £250 a month. God only knows how folk can afford to put 2 kids through nursery all week.

[454697819]

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.

Hence its my rant :p and your point is moot point IMHO

[Bri w]

That gives you £2.24kpm income (roughly)

Rent £800
Food £300
Gas/electric/water etc £150
hairdressing/dentist/opticians £20
Car insurance/tax/maintenance £100
Travel to work etc £1-300pm

that could all add up to £15-1700. Quite easy for it all to diminish.

My personal opinion is if you can't afford kids, don't have them. Maybe harsh but as someone has said, the stupid are outbreeding the intelligent and skilled. It leads to a system where the topheavy part are the scroungers being supported by the hard workers. Does not work.

So rent something that's £700 per month... if I could find the thread this very point came up in last year... the child benefit isn't being used as child benefit, it's being used to benefit all the family.

[Fallout]

the stupid are outbreeding the intelligent

It's really frikkin scary when you put it like that! 8-[

[yorkie_chris]

Reverse Darwinism, the fat, lazy and stupid spawning all over the place while the intelligent and industrious can't take the time off work!

[Fallout]

Reverse Darwinism, the fat, lazy and stupid spawning all over the place while the intelligent and industrious can't take the time off work!

I fear we may have to start having sex with the office secretary in the loos at work in order to maintain the intellectual population.

[dizzyblonde]

It's really frikkin scary when you put it like that! 8-[


Have a peep on youtube, George Carlin 'stupid people'. I won't link it, as he does swear a lot.

Then have a look at 'why you are in debt' George really hits the nail on the head. Ok so its US based, but no different to what goes on here.
This one in particular is relevant to this thread.

[Bluefish]

Art though, you can either do it or you can't, I can't ;) Child Benifit, wife receives it, She works full time as do I, How much does a kid cost? Should I receive some thing for subsidising some one elses sprog? after all I've payed taxes for the last 30 years. So CB is 80 ish quid a month, well half of that goes straight to her on pocket money, plus extras.
We used to get a low rate of the working tax credit, then they changed the rules and now we get nothing, but if my wife was on her own then it would go up considerably, so they admit it's my money and my taxes that have to bring her up, just saying ;)

[Bibio]

WTF is this 'stupid people' we are all dumb at something so does that make us all stupid.

[dizzyblonde]

Pretty much Bibio, but then I'm blonde :lol:

[Biker Biggles]

Peepl like wot us aint innit

[MisterTommyH]

why should the government pay people child benifit?

to stop bleedin poverty that's why.

So how many families with a parent earning over £40k are on the poverty line?

I take others points that the cost of living quickly diminishes that, but the line has to be somewhere. Call it £50k if you like, but at the moment a millionaire can claim child benefit - Thats not stopping poverty.

[Bluefish]

So how many families with a parent earning over £40k are on the poverty line?

0 imo

[Bibio]

i agree that CB is outdated as to who should receive it.

CB was put in place to make sure that the child/children always had food on the table. when i was younger there were a lot of families who's dad were hard working but also heavy drinkers and would regularly drink most of the week's wages before they got home and i'm not just talking 'housing scheme' types. without the CB a lot of families would have suffered.

[MisterTommyH]

Am I getting confused then?

I thought that the £40k cap on child benefit and the £26k cap on total benefits were completely different proposals?

On the £26k cap I've got to say I'm in agreement with it.

£26k is equivalent to what, about £34k in salary once you've paid tax, NI and anything else that the government takes in from wages but not from benefits....

Thats way above the national average wage.....I just can't see how, based on the figures quoted, this is putting people on the poverty line?

Are we saying that a single parent earning £34k is on the poverty line? Maybe no-one should pay tax until they hit £35k?

[Bibio]

i think your getting a bit confused CB is about £30 a week. what you are on about is working/family tax credits.

£26k+ on benefits... i bloody wish. i'll be truthful and tell you i'm on £19k all in, that includes everything which is carers allowance, family tax credits, child benefit and the wife's disability and you know what, we survive as i don't drink etc. etc. but we don't get nice holidays or nowt. if i worked i would be pulling in £30k+

i wish i knew how the hell some of the people on benefits are earning £26k+

if i remember the single persons benefit is about £100 pw.

[MisterTommyH]

£26k+ on benefits... i bloody wish. i'll be truthful and tell you i'm on £19k all in, that includes everything which is carers allowance, family tax credits, child benefit and the wife's disability and you know what, we survive as i don't drink etc. etc. but we don't get nice holidays or nowt. if i worked i would be pulling in £30k+

i wish i knew how the hell some of the people on benefits are earning £26k+



So a £26k cap would be seem to be ok then....

[Bibio]

So a £26k cap would be seem to be ok then....

not according to some as they have to have a nice house and decorated once a year and spend willy nilly on credit cards and each sprog has to have their own mobile phone and designer clothes.

but yes an average family of two parents and 2 children £26k should be plenty. excluding a mortgage i suppose.

[EssexDave]

WTF is this 'stupid people' we are all dumb at something so does that make us all stupid.


No stupid people was a lazy way of saying people that do not want to work because they are lazy and are bought up in an enviroment where this is encouraged.

I have no quarrel with people who are on benefits for the right reasons. I have an issue with people who are on benefits because they can't be bothered to work.

It is sterotypical, and no it is not true in every case, but consider this.

Generally, professional people have less children. Mostly because they focus on their careers and are busier than people who are solely on benefits. (Please note and I do want to stress this, this is NOT a point about people who are unable to work, this is about people who CHOOSE not to).

Those people who choose not to, generally have lots of kids. I don't know whether this is due to a larger amount of free time, or lack of education to btoher about a condom or just because, it's a good idea to have a lot of kids. The problem is, they are generally then bought up in an enviroment where working os scorned and living on the taxpayer is intelligent.

Now the big issue. Say, just to keep it simple, we have 10,000 people in work paying tax, and 1,000 solely on benefit. The 10,000 people on average have 1 child per family, and the 1,000 people have 4.

Very soon you end up with 5,000 in work and 6,000 out of work supported by those in work.

When you end up with 10,000 supported by the 1,000 our economy will not function and everything will collapse.

I will not draw any (more) conclusions from the above and wait to be flamed.

[Bri w]

No stupid people was a lazy way of saying people that do not want to work because they are lazy and are bought up in an enviroment where this is encouraged.

I have no quarrel with people who are on benefits for the right reasons. I have an issue with people who are on benefits because they can't be bothered to work.

It is sterotypical, and no it is not true in every case, but consider this.

Generally, professional people have less children. Mostly because they focus on their careers and are busier than people who are solely on benefits. (Please note and I do want to stress this, this is NOT a point about people who are unable to work, this is about people who CHOOSE not to).

Those people who choose not to, generally have lots of kids. I don't know whether this is due to a larger amount of free time, or lack of education to btoher about a condom or just because, it's a good idea to have a lot of kids. The problem is, they are generally then bought up in an enviroment where working os scorned and living on the taxpayer is intelligent.

Now the big issue. Say, just to keep it simple, we have 10,000 people in work paying tax, and 1,000 solely on benefit. The 10,000 people on average have 1 child per family, and the 1,000 people have 4.

Very soon you end up with 5,000 in work and 6,000 out of work supported by those in work.

When you end up with 10,000 supported by the 1,000 our economy will not function and everything will collapse.

I will not draw any (more) conclusions from the above and wait to be flamed.

I can't believe you have such a narrow minded, shorted sighted simplistic view of a complex problem........................................... .... and I totally agree with you but thought seeing as you asked for the flaming. I think this is the 2nd/3rd/4th generation concern that many politicians subscribe to.

Wouldn't it be fantastic to turn it on its head and 'force' people into changing their habits and working. Once working they'd be paying tax, and once that happens there's be more money to fund the big society Diddy Dave wants. Imagine a benefits programme that actually gave the needy the money to live comfortably rather than just enough to exist. "Be on the dole and get enough to live but for the disabled get enough to be really comfortable." Now I'd happily pay extra tax for that.

[Ed]

Not read everything on here. I sympathise with Numbers. Our daughter came along when I was 38, I used to earn a fair whack and had paid in for years and years - so it was nice to get something back. Why the hell work so damn hard if all they say is 'deeper'.

[MisterTommyH]

Bri W - it's not a complex problem. It's made complex by those protecting the rights of those who choose not to contribute to society.

Ed - It's unfortunate, but it's not the only place it's happened. I will pay NI all my life and I know that by the time I get to retirement (probably about 80 by then) there will not be enough people paying into the system to give me a pension. Can't boycott my contributions though can I.

[Bri w]

Bri W - it's not a complex problem. It's made complex by those protecting the rights of those who choose not to contribute to society.
.

Sorry Tommy, I should have put some smilies in. If you read all of what I typed you'll see I agreed with the post... my reply was tongue in cheek.

[454697819]

Bri W - it's not a complex problem. It's made complex by those protecting the rights of those who choose not to contribute to society.

Ed - It's unfortunate, but it's not the only place it's happened. I will pay NI all my life and I know that by the time I get to retirement (probably about 80 by then) there will not be enough people paying into the system to give me a pension. Can't boycott my contributions though can I.

yes you can sub it out to a private pension..

thanks for the input Ed.

Cheers

[EssexDave]

The problem is Bri, in my opinion, our economy was not designed to be able to support people in the way they are starting to expect to be supported.

As I said, I'm all up for benefits for those who need, but why should somebody work hard, all their life, pay tax all their life to have someone else getting hand me outs from the state to pay for them to have a decent life on the dole.

I appreciate that some people are physically or mentally unable to work and in that instance, they should be supported and should be given a comfortable life.

The whole point is, it isn't sustainable unless you want to scrap the NHS, police, fire service, ambulances, transport links etc - scrap them all and pile all money into benefits then maybe, we will generate enough revenue to pay for all these benefits.

[Ed]

Complete tangent and derail, OK? Sorry Alex...

We are thinking of a move to France, not yet, in about 10 years time, maybe a bit more. I'll be 62+:( Funny, Govt wants us all to work till 68 - I'll need two hearing aids and +5 specs by then:rolleyes:

Have to sell this place and get shot of the ****ing mortgage, but assuming we can... you can buy an OK house in Lot-et-Garonne for about €120 - 130K current values. We have no pension to speak of, will need some capital, can't live here on next to nowt, so we will bugger off in search of the sun and a cheaper and more relaxed lifestyle.

[MisterTommyH]

Sorry Tommy, I should have put some smilies in. If you read all of what I typed you'll see I agreed with the post... my reply was tongue in cheek.

I got ya, just didn't word my reply that well. Was trying to agree.

[EssexDave]

Complete tangent and derail, OK? Sorry Alex...

We are thinking of a move to France, not yet, in about 10 years time, maybe a bit more. I'll be 62+:( Funny, Govt wants us all to work till 68 - I'll need two hearing aids and +5 specs by then:rolleyes:

Have to sell this place and get shot of the ****ing mortgage, but assuming we can... you can buy an OK house in Lot-et-Garonne for about €120 - 130K current values. We have no pension to speak of, will need some capital, can't live here on next to nowt, so we will bugger off in search of the sun and a cheaper and more relaxed lifestyle.



Back on topic....have a kid?

Haha no that was harsh and I didn't mean that as I know child benefit is not enough to make a substantial difference.

[DJFridge]

If you only received CB for the first, say, 3 children, would people stop at 3? I would love to think so but, deep down, I know it wouldn't work. There will always be people who, for a variety of reasons (ALL of which are WRONG by the way, but that's a whole other thread) want to have their own football team. Even if they didn't then get CB for each extra munchkin, they would still get the larger and larger house paid for and that's where the real money goes.

On a less controversial note, I think that the majority of the general population of this country would probably support keeping Child Benefit as a "for all" benefit, but agree to some sort of cap on the overall level of benefits that a family can receive to keep it at least somewhere around the level of the national average wage.

[EssexDave]

If you only received CB for the first, say, 3 children, would people stop at 3? I would love to think so but, deep down, I know it wouldn't work. There will always be people who, for a variety of reasons (ALL of which are WRONG by the way, but that's a whole other thread) want to have their own football team. Even if they didn't then get CB for each extra munchkin, they would still get the larger and larger house paid for and that's where the real money goes.

On a less controversial note, I think that the majority of the general population of this country would probably support keeping Child Benefit as a "for all" benefit, but agree to some sort of cap on the overall level of benefits that a family can receive to keep it at least somewhere around the level of the national average wage.


Or just go chinese and place a limit on number of kids you're allowed.

Seeing as we are all soon to be owned by the Chinese (seen Thames water is now 10% owned by them? Oh and no in case you were wondering wasn't even British owned over the last 5 years anyway)

[Bluefish]

why the hell should people on benifits get the average wage? the mrs works full time so is she going to get an extra 10k a year on your plan to bring her up to the average wage?

[timwilky]

So my mother had 5 kids, three pregnancies. How do you deal with multiple births in the 3 kids scenario

[Bibio]

in 1982 the unemployed figure topped 3 million with about a uk population of 50 million give or take.

2011 saw an unemployment figure of 2.6 million with a population of 60 million give or take.

the biggest difference now is that the government pay people top-ups as the cost of living has spiralled out of proportion to a point that the average wage will not sustain a family. you also have to remember that for every pound the gov give out they get a large percentage back threw tax and duty. for instance, the gov give me £10 i then put £10 worth of fuel in my car so then the gov get around 80% back as duty/vat. take £100 and go spend it on anything but food and the government will in one way or another get at least £20 back from your purchases. so if you look at it closely the unemployed don't actually cost the tax payer as much as the media would have you believe.

the biggest drain on our society is the armed forces fighting wars that have nothing to do with us. the tax payer foots the bill for everything the forces use with no gain back for the gov via duty/vat, every bullet that is fired out a gun costs us money. but everyone has been brainwashed into thinking that this is ok because it the armed forces and we have to protect ourselves. yes i agree that we have to protect ourselves against invasion from other forces but what we don't need to do is go invading another country in the name of 'peace keeping'.

[Fallout]

So my mother had 5 kids, three pregnancies. How do you deal with multiple births in the 3 kids scenario

Unfortunately, the babies will have to be placed into a ring where they will fight to the death. The last two crawling get to live. :smt065

[-Ralph-]

Lot of very selfish posts in here, and I'm not a tin hat brigade, but I agree with Bibio, Dizzyblonde and Biger Biggles whole heartedly. Society is necessary.

Regardless of whether or not child benefit is paid to the right people or not, lets address this attitude of 'why should I pay for you to have a sprog'. Lets call it the anti-society attitude.

I've had a decent career and I'm a higher rate tax payer. So let me take the anti-society attitude for a moment (devils advocate)...

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.

James employs a 45 year old office administrator, Bob and pays him £25k a year. Bob was fed up of school a 16 so he got his O' levels and went and got a job. Bob's a bit of a lazy fecker TBH and turns up at the office a 9am on the dot, checks his watch at lunchtime to make sure he's had a full hour, and drop tools and walks out at 5:30 on the dot. He does his job, but as soon as something falls outside his job description he says that's not what James pays him for.

James not only pays tax on 4 times the salary, but he pays it at a higher rate. He pays over 4 times as much tax as Bob.

James lives in the same town as Bob though, he has a much nicer house than Bob, but pays much more Council Tax. He has a much nicer car, but buys more taxed fuel, his tax disk costs double and he paid many times more VAT when he bought it. His bins are collected by the same lorry. He drives the same roads. His kids go to the same local school, and get their swimming lessons at the same local pool. He is protected by the same defence budget. When one of his kids falls of his bike, he goes to the same A&E dept.

As we know the country is in deficit and every tax pound we contribute is spent. What this means is the country spends every penny of both James's tax and Bob's tax, but they receive pretty much the same benefit for that tax.

This really ****es James off, because James is anti-society. He doesn't see why he should have to subsidise Bob's bin collection, or his roads, or his kids schooling, or why he should contribute 5/6ths towards the A&E department, when Bob only contributes 1/6th.

Is James right? If you are on national average wage like Bob do you think you should pay twice as much tax, while James pays half as much? It's Bob's lazy rrrsss fault that he chose not to go to University, and not to bother ever trying for promotion. If Bob goes and falls off a ladder and can't work anymore, WTF should James' tax pounds get used to pay Bob's disability benefit?

In fact how many of those on here moaning about subsidising other people's sprogs pay anything like as much tax as James, or are even higher rate tax payers?

If you're earning £25k a year, you're probably spending about £7k in tax and NI. National average spend per adult is about £13000. James says your not subsidising other peoples sprogs, he's subsiding you! Go back to college, get some more qualifications, work harder, get a better job, and contribute more to society you lazy fecker.

So is James right? Of course he's not, because he is living in a society . If he wants to keep all his money, and not have to subsidise Bob, he can go live in a country where he can get away with dodging the tax bill, but when he calls the police 'cos his kids been kidnapped, the police already know exactly where the kid is because they are getting a cut of the ransom money.

But unless you want to go live there yourself, stop fecking moaning. One day it may be you that falls off that ladder, and whilst you begrudge paying somebody elses child benefit now, I'll bet you'll be happy to take the disability benefit!

[EssexDave]

That's fine, and I agree in society people need to be supporting and services provided, I've made it clear I'm not debating that.

My argument was not on people who work and possibly don't earn so much, and not on people who are unable to work.

Those who choose not to work, and have kids and are provided with a house and money etc - I feel they should work, else you end up with a group of individuals who are bought up by someone who is not interesting in contributing to society, merely taking - which in your example is exactly what you are complaining about and I agree.

[Fallout]

That's all well and good Ralph, and I agree with your society perspective, but the door swings both ways. You can't have a go at James because he's complaining about someone who doesn't work as hard as him. James is contributing more to your society than Bob is, so he has a right to complain. (Not talking about financially here)

If we're in a team of hole diggers and I am moving 20 shovels per minute and you're doing 1, I have a right to complain because I am contributing more. You can't say I agreed to be part of the team and it is a TEAM so deal with it. Teams are supposed to work together, each pulling their fair share of the load, and like any team, if one person cannot be bothered to do their fair share, why should they get all the benefits? The only time it is fair to shovel 1 load a minute is when the person is doing all they can. If they're capable of much more but can't be bothered, then they are a drain and are not contributing.

I'm not talking monetary value. Some people will be smart and have good jobs and others won't. It's not fair to penalise the less intelligent. So if James is smart and can earn 100k, then he should pay more tax. He's still going to have a better quality of life. He is still rewarded for being smart, but contributes more. People contribute a proportion of their full potential. It's a fair system.

What people are complaining about is giving to slackers. I think most people would be happy to pay child benefit to those who contribute 100% of their potential to society. There's nobody more deserving than someone who has a crap job, but does it anyway. It's the people who don't work at all, and sponge off society, who don't deserve any child benefit. They aren't part of the team or contributing to your society, so they do not deserve it.

Edit: +1 to what Dave said. Same thing in less words! :)

[-Ralph-]

I dont see why you should be rewarded for having kids there is too many people in the world as it is.

I've paid NI for over 25 years and still not received any benefits.

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.

You get my vote (in reference to squirrel hunter)

I don't put a cost on the system for schooling etc, even the cost of their birth, so I should get £81.20/month as a thank-you for not having spawned.

Sorry to the people I have quoted, I'm not picking on you guys in particular, you've been quoted because you were on the first two pages.

someone who is not interesting in contributing to society

What people are complaining about is giving to slackers.

Fallout and Essex Dave - None of these posts made any distinction between somebody who doesn't want to work and gets child benefit, or somebody who earns £100k and gets child benefit. These posts say nothing more than, 'They are your kids, why should I pay for them'. It is IMO a selfish and an anti-society attitude. And it's not just these people quoted, like I said that's first couple of pages, the attitude continues throughout the thread.

My post started with this

Regardless of whether or not child benefit is paid to the right people or not, lets address this attitude of 'why should I pay for you to have a sprog'. Lets call it the anti-society attitude.

Whether or not child benefit should be paid to slackers with no intention of working is not an issue I tried to address in my post.

By all means moan about how the money is spent, and whether or not a policy is correct, or encourages people to live off benefits, but don't moan about subsidising others if you choose to live in a society. I realise only too well that some people cost society more than others, but at a very simple level, the country spends £13000 per adult, so unless you pay £13k a year or more in taxation, be that VAT, fuel, income tax, whatever, then you are being subsidised to some extent, by those who pay more. I'd be prepared to bet a lot of people who take that attitude, in actual fact only pay in and much as they take out, and they are not actually subsidising anybody.

[dizzyblonde]

I shall tell you why people in this thread are selfish Ralph, and its quite easy really.

People are people, its human nature to want what is yours, look after yourself, and only rely on yourself. Its also human nature to feel a tinge of jealousy towards someone else who has something you don't, even if you don't want it......its a case of

'well if I don't have it, why should you?'

Thats the reason why rich people, or indeed people who are comfy, who work hard, seem to think its ok to redicule the poor and not so well off. What happens if Bob starts using the money that supports his family to make a go of something, and takes over James' empire? Ahhh see James wouldn't like that, so he'll make sure at every turn Bob can't get a chance to do that. He'll say Bob can't have help, because james can't have it, thus keeping James rich and Bob poor.

[slark01]

In 2006 I came out of work to look after my daughter. The reason for this is simple, at the time we could not afford for me to work and to pay childcare costs, as the childcare costs was more than what I was earning. Also I believe that if you are to have a child then you should look after it and not someone else, it's your responsibility, plus you should want the child to grow up with a good sense of what is right and what is wrong and the only way of doing that is by being there and teaching the child.

Since then the only money I get is the child benefit / tax credit ( £122 p/m total ). I do not get any other money. The child benefit / tax credit gets split up and is used for my daughters future and for spending on her now.

The wife has a fulltime job and earns just over £25k. So basically we get back a little of the tax and NI back.

I get peeved off when someone gets a shedload of beneifts and has no intention of ever working and at the same time I fully understand why people work hard and get a good wage, only to be shafted by the government.
But is there a real solution to the problem, the answer is simple, get rid of all benefits and run a true communist state....sod that rather live on the moon :-)

But seriously though, if you don't like the way things are run in this country then do something about it, rather than moaning about it. Come up with good ideas and campaign to your MP or get an action group going.
I don't have alot of things and i've had to do without stuff ( not had new clothes for a long time, daughter is always getting new clothes :-) ), but I am Happy and contented with what I do have and yes as I have said before, I do get peeved of with the layabouts.

To close, it is pointless to argue and instead you lot should be finding ways of helping each other and in society in general.

Happy thoughts to you all

Ste.

[timwilky]

To much psycho claptrap there dizzy one.

It is simple, in the days when child allowance was issued. It was simple, kids were a natural part of married life, large families were the norm. Social deprivation was rife and due to the huge losses of life in the 1st war and 5 years of restricted child birth due to the second. Family development was encouraged and even subsidised to generate the baby boom.

In modern Britain, children are now a life style choice. The nation does not need more kids than deaths and the population growth is of concern. Especially where it is funded by state benefits. Yes my children are grown up, my wife had her weekly book for the post office and whilst the kids were young it was the only money she had in her pocket to spend on the kids without dragging me to the shoe shop etc.

So I have had my cut and don't mind paying for others. After all I am well aware of the costs of bringing up a young and growing family. However in the ideal world there would be no need for any form of in work benefit. All should be able to earn a living wage. Then the lifestyle choice would matter. Do I take that 3rd holiday in the sun each year or have a child.

[-Ralph-]

Thats the reason why rich people, or indeed people who are comfy, who work hard, seem to think its ok to redicule the poor and not so well off. What happens if Bob starts using the money that supports his family to make a go of something, and takes over James' empire? Ahhh see James wouldn't like that, so he'll make sure at every turn Bob can't get a chance to do that. He'll say Bob can't have help, because james can't have it, thus keeping James rich and Bob poor.

Ha, ha, you've got your tin hat on again Dizzy ;)

[dizzyblonde]

:lol: But can you deny there isn't any truth in it?

Tin hat or not..........read between the lines of the media story, as someone posted(Bibio I think) and its all there in black and white.

Anyway, I'm with Ed, I'll either bugger orf and hide in his French Chateau, or he can hide in my cave up the Troodos, waving sticks and shouting profanities like father Jack. ;)

[-Ralph-]

The nation does not need more kids than deaths and the population growth is of concern

Is it? Everytime the government talks about pensions it tells us we have an ageing population as a result of the average 2.4 kids going down and many more people either choosing not to have them, or leaving it later in life and being unable to have them.

If kids are indeed a lifestyle choice, it's a good job that those of of us who make that choice do, and we all need to do everything we can to ensure they have the best opportunities in life, because for any adult under 55 or 60, it's not the money you pay into the system now, that is going to be spent on you when you have retired is it?

Maybe those who don't have the cost of raising kids should pay MORE tax towards helping those that do, because eventually the investment parents have made in their children is what you are going be be relying on to pay for your meals on wheels.

[dizzyblonde]

Indeed you are right Ralph, the government is so wrapped up in buggering it up for everyone in this country, as well as bob and James ;) They can't even dish out their information right, as it contradicts itself every time!


I'd like Ralph to do a poll......something along the lines of..

those who complain about benefit handouts, taxations etc, do you a) have kids b) not have kids!

Although I know who has kids in this thread who are discussing, I have a feeling a lot don't. Although their discussion points are valid, I wonder how many of those who don't would have a differing opinion if they did have them? Point being, those who have kids in these discussions, not only think about themselves, but their families in the argument.....those that don't think about Me, Myself and Irene and nobody else.

[-Ralph-]

:lol: But can you deny there isn't any truth in it?

I can't deny that there's some truth in it, but I can't say it's entirely true either.

[Fallout]

but don't moan about subsidising others if you choose to live in a society.

We have a government though Ralph. We have politics. We're allowed to shape our society through the power of the vote. If we don't make it clear we're not happy with a policy by voicing our concerns, we can't create change.

Yes, we do have to accept that, by living in the UK, we are part of this society and it's rules, but nowhere does it say we can't try to change them by saying the ones we don't like. I personally would not choose to leave the UK society (although that is a tall order anyway), because the benefits outweigh the negatives, but I will continue to exercise my right to debate and power to vote to make the society suit my needs better, in the same way you're doing. :)

And all this debate about it being selfish, I don't agree with. We are all selfish, fundamentally. If we weren't, we'd give all the money we earn away to charity, we'd wait at busy roads waiting to shepherd nannies to the other side, we'd give our lives to building wells in Africa etc. But no, we don't do that, because we want to enjoy our lives, like the selfish organisms we are. :D Plus, I don't see why it's more selfish to want to keep something (i.e. your money) than to want to take something (i.e. someone elses money). Why is that?

I'm happy to pay for other people's child benefits btw, even though I appear to be arguing the other side. I would like to see it more targeted towards those people I think deserve it though.

[-Ralph-]

We have a government though Ralph. We have politics. We're allowed to shape our society through the power of the vote. If we don't make it clear we're not happy with a policy by voicing our concerns, we can't create change.

Yes, we do have to accept that, by living in the UK, we are part of this society and it's rules, but nowhere does it say we can't try to change them by saying the ones we don't like. I personally would not choose to leave the UK society (although that is a tall order anyway), because the benefits outweigh the negatives, but I will continue to exercise my right to debate and power to vote to make the society suit my needs better, in the same way you're doing. :)

And all this debate about it being selfish, I don't agree with. We are all selfish, fundamentally. If we weren't, we'd give all the money we earn away to charity, we'd wait at busy roads waiting to shepherd nannies to the other side, we'd give our lives to building wells in Africa etc. But no, we don't do that, because we want to enjoy our lives, like the selfish organisms we are. :D Plus, I don't see why it's more selfish to want to keep something (i.e. your money) than to want to take something (i.e. someone elses money). Why is that?

I'm happy to pay for other people's child benefits btw, even though I appear to be arguing the other side. I would like to see it more targeted towards those people I think deserve it though.

You don't think people are being selfish, and I do, which we'll just have to agree to disagree on. After all those same people will happily benefit from the system when they are retired, whilst the kids they begrudged paying child benefit for, are now paying tax.

Other than the attitude/selfish aspect of it, which other bit of your post am I arguing with?

[Fallout]

I do think people are being selfish. I think people who claim the money and the people who refuse to give it are both selfish. I think everyone is fundamentally selfish.

The only bit I think we disagree on is, you seem to be suggesting people shouldn't say "I don't want to give people child benefit using my tax money", because they choose to live in this society. I say they can choose to live in this society, but still dislike it's rules and regulations, and potentially change them by making those statements. :)

[-Ralph-]

you seem to be suggesting people shouldn't say "I don't want to give people child benefit using my tax money", because they choose to live in this society

No, if you go back and read my James and Bob post, it sets child benefit issues aside and doesn't address them again. I even quoted this for you

Regardless of whether or not child benefit is paid to the right people or not, lets address this attitude of 'why should I pay for you to have a sprog'. Lets call it the anti-society attitude.

What I'm objecting to there is the attitude of "I don't see why I should pay for something/anything with my tax money, that I either don't, or choose not to, benefit from".

I've paid NI for over 25 years and still not received any benefits.

I can't see why I should subside someone else's lifestyle choice

You get my vote (in reference to squirrel hunter)

I should get £81.20/month as a thank-you for not having spawned.

I realise cutting people's posts down like that is quoting them out of context, and putting literal meaning on a few words. Like a newspaper quoting a celebrity and making it sound like they said something completely different, but I've already apologised to those people and said that I'm not picking on them in particular, so hopefully they won't be upset by it. I'm picking bits out of certain posts in order to make a point and illustrate something that has come across from lots of people whilst reading the thread.

[daveyrach]

The big issue here is we are not differentiating between those you claim benefits and are completely unwilling to work and then the people like many of us who work hard in full time jobs and claim it 'because we can' and why shouldn't we, I pay my tax and have never been unemployed so why not claim a little bit back?

[Drew Carey]

I don't have kids and my 2peneth is simple;

Child Benefit is flawed and manipulated by many. I agree that for people of a certain income, they need assistance and as a so called "society" they should be given that level of assistance to ensure that no child lives in poverty - to me poverty being unable to feed and have a basic level of clothing / accomodation. There should be no more and no less.

However, how we do that in a fair and consistent manner - if you come up with the idea of a true foolproof system - then you deserve a nobel prize of some sort.

The current system is unfair, it will always be unfair and there will always be winners and losers. No politician has the cahonas to really tackle it for fear of there perception in the media and with voters.

Therefore - it will never change irespective of who is voted in. Policies will come and go and inequalities will continue - but bottom line, I work my backside off, earn a wage, pay a tax, pay NI, etc etc etc. If tax goes up etc, I don't moan, I simply re-adjust me budgeting and adapt. If neccesary work a second job.

I know not everyone is in this position and some have kids etc and struggle massively, to you I have the upmost respect as it is a difficult position to be in - if your circumstances are such, then quite rightly you should recieve assistance.

It is just a crying shame that the system is so flawed that results in wealthy people being able to claim, plus many thousands having kids and claiming as it is easier. It is what it is and no matter how much we moan......won't change.

C'est la vie.

PS - Disclaimer - This is just my view on a public forum!! ;-)

[Fallout]

What I'm objecting to there is the attitude of "I don't see why I should pay for something/anything with my tax money, that I either don't, or choose not to, benefit from".

Can agree with that completely. We all chuck money into this pot and we all benefit from it. Arguing about where it goes and singling people out as unworthy of your contribution is a bit pointless in the scheme of things.

Common ground, eh? Let's never speak to each other again before we fudge this up! :p

[blue curvy jester]

This proposed Child Benifit cut can't work legally any way and yes i am really going to get hit by it:

I am going to loses £2,500 p/a for being £57 over the threshold ( and will be taking a £100 p/a paycut to reverse this)

But I have NO legal responsibility to tell my wife how much i earn , and she has No legal right to ask ( and in fact does not know)

As she claims the child benifit not me and she earns nothing while volunteers for 20 hours a week at a local school and studies at college ( which we pay for) she is not commiting any fraud by claiming it

I would not mind a review of this so that i may end up with nothing as long as it helps further down the scale effectively and in a focused manner

but i object to my one set friends still getting it as they both earn £40,000 still getting it if i don't

and my other friends who run their own business who take it as dividends from the company at about £75,000 a year and a salary of £12,000 so they get everything

[squirrel_hunter]

Regardless of whether or not child benefit is paid to the right people or not, lets address this attitude of 'why should I pay for you to have a sprog'. Lets call it the anti-society attitude.

I can't see why I should subside someone else's lifestyle choice


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.

What I'm objecting to there is the attitude of "I don't see why I should pay for something/anything with my tax money, that I either don't, or choose not to, benefit from".

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?

[blue curvy jester]

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

Cos your a Coq who's tax pips should be squezzed till they squeak, as this will keep you off the highways of the UK and stop you wrecking motorcycles :smt065

(throws in **** grenade and retires to suitable distance to laugh at indignation)