Child Benefit Cuts

[fizzwheel]

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

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

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

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

Discuss...

[Biker Biggles]

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

[_Stretchie_]

"Creeeeeeak"

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

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


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

So:

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

It's just what I overheard

[timwilky]

The issue to me is you can have a family with dad only working earning 45K and benefits withdrawn, or you can have a family with mum/dad both working joint income of 85k and benefits remain in place.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

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

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

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






any advance on dual income outrage?

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

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

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

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

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

[Messie]

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

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

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

[Biker Biggles]

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

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

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

[Messie]

Originally Posted by Owenski

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

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

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