Child benefit cuts
Comments
-
Stumpy,
And you jump to conclusions ;-). I was pointing out a fact, not commenting on it, and certainly no right to call me prejudiced fom that!0 -
So because I'm 38, in that higher tax band and worked hard to get there, pay nearly 1200 a month out of my pay packet to the taxman.. I should feel good about losing another 89 quid a month.. all to save 1bn (which as said, it won't because of the red tape)
How £50bn goes down the drain
£9bn
Public services running costs have risen by 10.2%, but output is up by only 1.7%. Closing the gap saves £9bn.
£6.5bn
Axing the entire Department of Trade and Industry, which is accused of doing little other than hindering business, would save £6.5bn.
£4.1bn
The cost of Whitehall’s ever-increasing bureaucracy has soared. The TaxPayers’ Alliance says checking the spending will save £4.1bn.
£3.2bn
Massive benefit fraud was exposed in a shock report by the National Audit Office. Stopping the cheats, plus errors, would save £3.2bn.
£2.5bn
The Rail Regulator found that Network Rail spent £1bn on work it "did not need to do" and completely wasted another £1.5bn.
£1.8bn
A minimum £1.8bn of our contribution to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy bails out farmers in France and other Euro nations.
£1.7bn
Writing off failed projects, including radar, and bungled communication and computer systems, costs the Ministry of Defence £1.7bn.
£1.7bn
Reducing sickies by public sector workers, who take off 50% more time than private sector staff, will save £1.7bn.
£1.2bn
A growing army of Government inspectors and regulators cost us £12bn last year. This could easily be cut by £1.2bn.
£1.1bn
Axe many of the duties of local education authorities now that money goes straight to schools, a simple saving of £1.1bn.
£1bn
The Health Department says the cost of illnesses and infections caught IN hospital is £1bn. Better hygiene would save that cash.
£200m
At least 100,000 foreign “health tourists” cost the NHS a massive amount. Simple measures could save at least £200m.0 -
If you don't like how much tax you pay, move somewhere you'd pay less
0 -
Nah, I don't have a problem with paying tax, it's where it goes that's the problem..0
-
OR... You could still live in the UK, but if you got qualified up, you could work out on the CP ring in Afghanistan / Iraq / general Arab area, and easily rake in upwards of £80,000 / year. TAX FREECat With No Tail wrote:If you don't like how much tax you pay, move somewhere you'd pay less
Although, it's GODDAMN dangerous work, and for the tax-free-ness, you will be working with literally zero time off...
Not so good if you have family, I guess.
But it can be done!Boo-yah mofo
Sick to the power of rad
Fix it 'till it's broke0 -
RTW-Chaz wrote:
OR... You could still live in the UK, but if you got qualified up, you could work out on the CP ring in Afghanistan / Iraq / general Arab area, and easily rake in upwards of £80,000 / year. TAX FREECat With No Tail wrote:If you don't like how much tax you pay, move somewhere you'd pay less
Although, it's GODDAMN dangerous work, and for the tax-free-ness, you will be working with literally zero time off...
Not so good if you have family, I guess.
But it can be done!
As it happens, I know a couple of lads I was at school with who are out there now doing PSD work. They reckon you go do that for a bit, then wind up somewhere like Dubai, wearing a suit and driving an armoured Maybach or something raking in 6 figures.
Sounds freakin awesome if it wasnt for the fact you have to get shot at for a few years before anyone will look at employing you.0 -
I don't mean to be condescending, but do you really need ANY child benefits if your household brings in £40K+
No but its handy to pay for that new bike I'm about to order....best make it two years interest free credit instead of three
Seriously though, no I dont need it (although it was nice and used constructively towards nursary bills) we'll survive without it and I do understand the need to make the cuts. As a citizen I am glad the govt is taking action to tackle things even if I do not always agree the action.
But I dont want to pay 40% tax that will go towards paying a benefit I'm no longer entltled to, to a household with more income than mine. In their aim to make simple the Govt are clearly making it unfair by targeting the highest salary in the household rather that the combined income...still its a bit of no brainer and vote loser as it stands so I would hope they would sort it before 20130 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Northwind wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:I mean, round here, like many places, we're overloaded with girls getting pregnant just to have kids. Hell, i know girls who've explicitly said so. That is wrong.
Is that not the normal reason to get pregnant? That was very badly worded, wasn't it!
What I meant is that they get pregnant, not to start a family, but as a way of freeloading on benefits.
Amen to that man. Down in Arbury in Cambridge, I remember hearing so many girls who were excited to have babies literally only be happy their getting extra money a month. Proper little hoodrats who take their benefit money and spend it on drugs for themselves, or alcahol or whatever, but the baby eats shit food because they are "too poor" to afford decent food.
I absolutely hate freeloading scum much the same. They even have the nerve to get vexed when their benefit doesn't come the day they want it or "need" it to buy what they want. Useless lowlifes. They should have all their benefits removed, including council house if you ask me.
I'm all for a system where the benefits must be explained. If someone has a baby at 16, drops out of school, and tests positive for drugs or high levels of alcahol, then they get immedietely turned away. However if the family has a genuine excuse as to why they need the benefits, such as being laid off work, terminal illness, or anything that truely warrants it, they should get it. This will weed out all the little scumbags that do whatever they can to get more money from the state and avoid having to work.0 -
I think a few peeps missed the point about one of the upsides of living on the IOM. There's got to be some upside hasn't thereCat With No Tail wrote:If you don't like how much tax you pay, move somewhere you'd pay less "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I think a few peeps missed the point about one of the upsides of living on the IOM. There's got to be some upside hasn't thereCat With No Tail wrote:If you don't like how much tax you pay, move somewhere you'd pay less
I assure you I have no idea what you're talking about.....honest.0 -
This is the problem...Cat With No Tail wrote:RTW-Chaz wrote:
OR... You could still live in the UK, but if you got qualified up, you could work out on the CP ring in Afghanistan / Iraq / general Arab area, and easily rake in upwards of £80,000 / year. TAX FREECat With No Tail wrote:If you don't like how much tax you pay, move somewhere you'd pay less
Although, it's GODDAMN dangerous work, and for the tax-free-ness, you will be working with literally zero time off...
Not so good if you have family, I guess.
But it can be done!
As it happens, I know a couple of lads I was at school with who are out there now doing PSD work. They reckon you go do that for a bit, then wind up somewhere like Dubai, wearing a suit and driving an armoured Maybach or something raking in 6 figures.
Sounds freakin awesome if it wasnt for the fact you have to get shot at for a few years before anyone will look at employing you.
You can walk straight into a MEATY 6 figure desk job though. However, you pretty much need to have come out top-bloke from a special forces unit to do it. So that's still 15 years getting shot at anyway, LOL!Boo-yah mofo
Sick to the power of rad
Fix it 'till it's broke0 -
Tax free allowance of £9,300; standard rate of income tax 10%; top rate 20%; tax bill capped at £115k of income. Does that ring a bell, you jammy git?Cat With No Tail wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I think a few peeps missed the point about one of the upsides of living on the IOM. There's got to be some upside hasn't thereCat With No Tail wrote:If you don't like how much tax you pay, move somewhere you'd pay less
I assure you I have no idea what you're talking about.....honest.
(It's my job to know cr@p like this...)"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Tax free allowance of £9,300; standard rate of income tax 10%; top rate 20%; tax bill capped at £115k of income. Does that ring a bell, you jammy git?Cat With No Tail wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I think a few peeps missed the point about one of the upsides of living on the IOM. There's got to be some upside hasn't thereCat With No Tail wrote:If you don't like how much tax you pay, move somewhere you'd pay less
I assure you I have no idea what you're talking about.....honest.
(It's my job to know cr@p like this...)
Tax free allowance of £9,300 is only for a single person, it's £18,600 for married couples, and is completely transferrable between husband and wife. My missus dosent work.
It's easy to take it for granted just how lucky we are sometimes. I remember when I finished college and went to work for a bank, one month they paid us and tax at UK rate in error, everyone was going fcuking nuts because it was such a huge amount off what we usually pay.
Yet per capita, we still manage to have some of the best cash reserves of any country in the world.
Oh, and when (if) my kids want to go to uni, the Govt here still pays all their tuition fees.
[/smug]0 -
Cat With No Tail wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Tax free allowance of £9,300; standard rate of income tax 10%; top rate 20%; tax bill capped at £115k of income. Does that ring a bell, you jammy git?Cat With No Tail wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I think a few peeps missed the point about one of the upsides of living on the IOM. There's got to be some upside hasn't thereCat With No Tail wrote:If you don't like how much tax you pay, move somewhere you'd pay less
I assure you I have no idea what you're talking about.....honest.
(It's my job to know cr@p like this...)
Tax free allowance of £9,300 is only for a single person, it's £18,600 for married couples, and is completely transferrable between husband and wife. My missus dosent work.
It's easy to take it for granted just how lucky we are sometimes. I remember when I finished college and went to work for a bank, one month they paid us and tax at UK rate in error, everyone was going fcuking nuts because it was such a huge amount off what we usually pay.
Yet per capita, we still manage to have some of the best cash reserves of any country in the world.
Oh, and when (if) my kids want to go to uni, the Govt here still pays all their tuition fees.
[/smug]
don't need to be reading this after profit share month = stupid tax paid
0 -
I don't think anyone suggests 45k a year is rich by the way.
but it is comfortable, and the people earning at this value simply doesn't need state help. And we are not just against you Stumpy, it's more about the whole benefits system, You can't defend asking claiming benefits at this value of income.
Any who says they need that support at this rate have overstretched themselves, need to trade down a size of house or something.0 -
I love the argument by people who don't want kids of their own asking why they should pay taxes for other peoples kids.
Who do they think is going to provide them medical care, clean up their rubbish, drive their bus they get on with their free bus pass etc etc when they are older?
Other peoples kids who were supported by child benefit.
Having children is the most fundamental part of life, these people who just think about money and possessions seem to forget about that. Maybe survival of the fittest is not dead after all and this is natures way of getting rid of people like that.0 -
Andy! wrote:I love the argument by people who don't want kids of their own asking why they should pay taxes for other peoples kids.
Who do they think is going to provide them medical care, clean up their rubbish, drive their bus they get on with their free bus pass etc etc when they are older?
Other peoples kids who were supported by child benefit.
Having children is the most fundamental part of life, these people who just think about money and possessions seem to forget about that. Maybe survival of the fittest is not dead after all and this is natures way of getting rid of people like that.
I disagree, What will pay for these things is huge amount of tax's I have paid in that wouldn't of been squandered on somebody who jkust nocked out a few kids to support themselves outside of work.0 -
speaking as a single man in the 40% tax bracket I reckon I am happy not to support the children of other 40% tax earners with my taxes.
One poster made a good point about how it affects one working parent families who could have made alternate choices to manage their finances but then there is nothing to stop that reorganisation of your lives now. I was speaking to a colleague who told me child support is £20 per month for the first and 13 for each additional so he was basically saying it was £500 to him and not that big an issue in any case.
Is this wrong (some one mentioned £3k for 2 kids per year?!)Closet jockey wheel pimp whore.0 -
No, the tax you pay now pays for the services now. They don't keep it aside until you need a hip replacement.
We've got an aging population. There will be shortfalls in the national budget unless there are A: more kids and/or B: more immigrants to pay for everything.
Edit: or C: we start killing old people!0 -
Thewaylander wrote:Andy! wrote:I love the argument by people who don't want kids of their own asking why they should pay taxes for other peoples kids.
Who do they think is going to provide them medical care, clean up their rubbish, drive their bus they get on with their free bus pass etc etc when they are older?
Other peoples kids who were supported by child benefit.
Having children is the most fundamental part of life, these people who just think about money and possessions seem to forget about that. Maybe survival of the fittest is not dead after all and this is natures way of getting rid of people like that.
I disagree, What will pay for these things is huge amount of tax's I have paid in that wouldn't of been squandered on somebody who jkust nocked out a few kids to support themselves outside of work.
but that is different.
you are confusing people who have kids to get benefits with people who want to have kids but don't have particularly well paid jobs.
What about nurses for example? They don't get paid much but they do a farking important job that we would be stuffed without. Are you saying they should not have children because they don't get paid much? We should not prevent good people from having children due to financial worries.
Your taxes may well pay for services and NHS etc but what use are they without people? If you stopped everyone on less than £40k a year having kids then there will be a major shortfall in the years to come and you are potentially missing out on lots of good genes being passed down - excuse the slight melodrama but the kid who grows up and develops a cure for Cancer could never exist as mum and dad couldn't afford to have kids.
Scum on the other hand should be chemically neutered but that is another discussion!0 -
bails87 wrote:No, the tax you pay now pays for the services now. They don't keep it aside until you need a hip replacement.
We've got an aging population. There will be shortfalls in the national budget unless there are A: more kids and/or B: more immigrants to pay for everything.
Edit: or C: we start killing old people!
+ that.0 -
Andy,
We are so overpopulated (not just nationally but globally) that yes we do need to start to encourage people to not have children. And to be fair i earn less than alot of nurses and get by just fine to be fair.
There is a system of living to a budget. alot of people don't partially due to the silly escalation of house prices has caused that. and come 10-15 years something will happen there as new buyers will never own a house.
I can not agree with these benefits particularly on any scale bar t the point when the kid may suffer seriously.0 -
I'm all for removing benefits from those that don't need them (comfortably well off and child benefits being a prime example), but I'd certainly prefer a fairer system than the one currently suggested. Another option I'd like to see some further figures on would be reducing the age when child benefit stops from 19 to 16.
Someone mentioned how many people would the benefits cap affect? The number on the BBC website is 50,000 households - to me that is simultaneously and lot and not a lotpaul.skibum wrote:I was speaking to a colleague who told me child support is £20 per month for the first and 13 for each additional so he was basically saying it was £500 to him and not that big an issue in any case.
Is this wrong (some one mentioned £3k for 2 kids per year?!)
per week, not per month. Can't see 3k in that though.0 -
It's c £1000 for first child and £700 for subsequent children, per year.Commute: Langster -Singlecross - Brompton S2-LX
Road: 95 Trek 5500 -Look 695 Aerolight eTap - Boardman TTe eTap
Offroad: Pace RC200 - Dawes Kickback 2 tandem - Tricross - Boardman CXR9.8 - Ridley x-fire0 -
I guess my kids get free schooling at a great school, my wife had two difficult pregnancies where the NHS were fantastic so I don't mind paying money back into the system.
But.. why doesn't the govenment just pay benifits to the first two children, the rest is your decision, and if you can't afford it tough!
[/quote]0 -
Andy! wrote:I love the argument by people who don't want kids of their own asking why they should pay taxes for other peoples kids.
Who do they think is going to provide them medical care, clean up their rubbish, drive their bus they get on with their free bus pass etc etc when they are older?
Other peoples kids who were supported by child benefit.
Having children is the most fundamental part of life, these people who just think about money and possessions seem to forget about that. Maybe survival of the fittest is not dead after all and this is natures way of getting rid of people like that.
There is a difference between really being strapped for cash, and living too extravagent for your wage group. This is what your major flaw is with your arguement. It's not having a problem with paying for other peoples kids, but when I'm paying someone to be irresponsible with their money, to the point where they have to rely on other people to "survive", then something is wrong with that picture.
I make only 1,000 a month, so 12k a year. I have a flat with my wife, who doesn't earn much other than student benefit because she's in nursing school so in total we make 15k a year. We are living perfectly comfortably, have no money problems and if she did become pregnant, we would have no problem supporting a kid and giving them a good life, even at 15k combined income per year. You know why? Because we don't spend stupid amount of money on an expensive house we don't need, or make dumb choices with our money. Personally I think anyone over about 20k combined household should not receive any benefits from the government what so ever. That is plenty to support a family on, albeit not an extravagent life, but with all necessities catered for.
It's really a shame to hear someone in this thread complaining about losing their child benefit money becuase they make too much. Congratulations, your finances are not even better off than a 21 year married couple who are putting themselves through university and nursing school and earn less than half of what you make in a year, combined. You should really be ashamed of yourself.0 -
I don't agree with child benefit in any form whatsoever. If you can't afford to have kids and/or aren't willing to sacrifice things to have them then don't bother, no one has a 'right' to have children. I do agree with help for those who have contributed to the system and are having difficulties.
Saying that ........perhaps the government would be better spending thier time (and our money) on closing tax loopholes benefittng the rich elite and banks etcWeaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel0 -
GHill wrote:I'm all for removing benefits from those that don't need them (comfortably well off and child benefits being a prime example), but I'd certainly prefer a fairer system than the one currently suggested. Another option I'd like to see some further figures on would be reducing the age when child benefit stops from 19 to 16.
Someone mentioned how many people would the benefits cap affect? The number on the BBC website is 50,000 households - to me that is simultaneously and lot and not a lotpaul.skibum wrote:I was speaking to a colleague who told me child support is £20 per month for the first and 13 for each additional so he was basically saying it was £500 to him and not that big an issue in any case.
Is this wrong (some one mentioned £3k for 2 kids per year?!)
per week, not per month. Can't see 3k in that though.
OK that makes sense with one of the other posts but yeah I am not getting 3k for 2 kids out of that.
I heard the quote that 15% of the pop (or is it work force - probably) are on 40% tax which aint a whole lot. If this was removing the benefit from the 50% tax bracket I dont think we'd have any arguements about it would we?
My personal view is if I had kidas I would not object therefore neither should anyone else! Closet jockey wheel pimp whore.0
