Child benefit cuts
Comments
-
I'm not sure what you think the Government has been doing with tax law over the last christ-knows-how-many years? We've got near on 10,000 pages of primary tax legislation in the UK: there's copy of it on a desk near me and I wouldn't want it to fall over, could be nasty.d87heaven wrote:Saying that ........perhaps the government would be better spending thier time (and our money) on closing tax loopholes benefittng the rich elite and banks etc
Anyway, tell me what loopholes you're talking about?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
This is a hot topic, but basically, I'm gonna lose 1700 quid, while the couple next door, who both work and earn an extra 30k keep that money, I'm all for helping the economy, even though I had no way in causing the current economic situation, the problem is that some end up paying more than others for no reason apart from they happen to be in the position of working hard to get where they are.
Oh, and by the way, about 12 years ago, I was on 16k, had just left the armed forces, married, I've got no degree, no A levels, but pure hard work and trust has got me to where I am
Please though, I was happy as a pig in sh*t when I was 25, no kids etc, but when you have 2 kids, plus a mortgage for a 3 bed house etc, would you be happy with more tax on top of the 40% you already pay.
The idea is of course that my two boys will grow up, get a job, pay taxes, and eventually contribute towards your pension.0 -
You dont get 3k for 2 kids, you (or I) get £134.50 a month, so just over £1500 a year
Although once in 40% tax bracket this is around 3k salary terms e.g. you will need to earn an extra 3k a year (before tax) to make it up0 -
GhallTN6 wrote:
Please though, I was happy as a pig in sh*t when I was 25, no kids etc, but when you have 2 kids, plus a mortgage for a 3 bed house etc, would you be happy with more tax on top of the 40% you already pay.
The idea is of course that my two boys will grow up, get a job, pay taxes, and eventually contribute towards your pension.
You arent paying any more tax you just arent getting some of it back. Did you chose to have your two kids because you would get £1700 from the Gov? No. You had kids because you are in a happy relationship and wanted to have children which I commend you on. I am just not sure why you are expecting me to pay to raise them for you.
I already help out with their schooling, health care etc etc......I am not having a go at you specifically I am just trying to put across a perspective.
I do appreciate that the method by which the cut is being levied will affect different household to a greater extent and that is unjust but means testing would cost more than the saving they are trying to achieve.Closet jockey wheel pimp whore.0 -
to be Honest Mountain monster got it totally right.
It's people not living with in there budgets. and please don't go with the my kids are gonna pay your pension so your taxes should come to me to mispend approach either it's total rubbish. We pay for schools health care and so on, If you can't affford to cloth or feed your children on any income you simply should not have had them int he first place.
My only exception to this is the people who were financially solid on having there children but somthing has gone wrong in the mean time. otherwise simply no.
I also love the idea of this benefit cap, i don't make it to the average wage myself, So i don't see why someone who doesn't work should get more than it. Bloody marvelous if you ask me.
i hope this is the start of cuttng back on the over the top well fare state!0 -
Just listening to the Jeremy Vine show where a woman in Kensington is claiming £7500 A MONTH in housing benefits for a 3 story villa she claims she can't move because her 8 children go to school there.
I really don't know why I bother to work and pay taxes.0 -
CraigXXL wrote:Just listening to the Jeremy Vine show where a woman in Kensington is claiming £7500 A MONTH in housing benefits for a 3 story villa she claims she can't move because her 8 children go to school there.
I really don't know why I bother to work and pay taxes.
F*** me! I dont know what is more alarming the 7.5k or the 8 kids - her lower regions must be like the channel tunnel.Closet jockey wheel pimp whore.0 -
paul.skibum wrote:CraigXXL wrote:Just listening to the Jeremy Vine show where a woman in Kensington is claiming £7500 A MONTH in housing benefits for a 3 story villa she claims she can't move because her 8 children go to school there.
I really don't know why I bother to work and pay taxes.
F*** me! I dont know what is more alarming the 7.5k or the 8 kids - her lower regions must be like the channel tunnel.
It's ok it will stretch
0 -
CraigXXL wrote:I really don't know why I bother to work and pay taxes.
To have a better life than her!
For all this talk of mega generous benefits, I think most people would rather be in their current situation with no or a few kids and a half decent wage, than have 8 kids and be utterly dependent on benefits and living in a council house.0 -
No body forced her to have kids and sponge of the state but laws exist to ensure that I pay my taxes on money earned from working to support these people. I have no choice in the matter other than to decide to quit working and become a low life but self respect stops me doing this. Do you expect me to pity her because given the choice I wouldn't let her have the steam off my turd unless she could prove that she contributes to society instead of just taking.0
-
Presumably if she was on the Jeremy Kyle show all 8 of her kids are asbos waiting to happen?Closet jockey wheel pimp whore.0
-
Sadly survival of the fittest is out of the window now with the wellfare state, NOw to some degree this is good. But beyond it's very very bad socially for the human race, and from a pure development POV.
I mean take it as a detached cold case study, In the wild if an animal doesn't contribute to its social group(for social grouped animals like ourselves) it will die, not be supported and so on, The human race needs to re-adopt this to some degree.0 -
Thewaylander wrote:The human race needs to re-adopt this to some degree.
Change that to the British government.0 -
Hehe Thats about it bails hehe
And ncie bet your excited 0 -
What about education? Why should non-parents subsidise the education of other peoples children? Or for that matter pay for their healthcare?Thewaylander wrote:Interesting one this, Seems to have people devided. My general veiw is people simply shouldn't have children if they can not support them, and all child benefits should be removed.
The answer is that well educated children are a requirement for a healthy society. We can go further - children are a requirement for a healthy society and there is some logic that all members of society should contribute to their welfare.
I had no problem subsidising child benefit before I even considered being a parent and I have no problem with it now.
As for the Govs proposals. Blimey George is utterly barking mad. Cutting it off for single wage familes on £44k but dishing it out to dual earners bringing home £87k. Utterly barking.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
-
On the subject of child benefits and my belief that we should all contribute to child welfare:
One of these little scrotes is going to grow up and be the person who cracks nuclear fusion, or figures out how to stop global warming, or scores the winning goal in the World Cup final.
I'm happy to invest in that prospect.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Very true, it should be based on the household's income, for certain.Daz555 wrote:As for the Govs proposals. Blimey George is utterly barking mad. Cutting it off for single wage familes on £44k but dishing it out to dual earners bringing home £87k. Utterly barking.
I agree - I dont have a problem with a salary cap based on 40% tax limit but with that sort of differential it is a little harsh - but then it is also the case that many married couples with an stay at home mum/dad dont use their annual allowance either and that seems to not be a problem to them. They are effectively giving away the opportunity to earn 6.5k (or whatever it is these days) tax free.Closet jockey wheel pimp whore.0 -
Daz555 wrote:
What about education? Why should non-parents subsidise the education of other peoples children? Or for that matter pay for their healthcare?Thewaylander wrote:Interesting one this, Seems to have people devided. My general veiw is people simply shouldn't have children if they can not support them, and all child benefits should be removed.
The answer is that well educated children are a requirement for a healthy society. We can go further - children are a requirement for a healthy society and there is some logic that all members of society should contribute to their welfare.
I had no problem subsidising child benefit before I even considered being a parent and I have no problem with it now.
As for the Govs proposals. Blimey George is utterly barking mad. Cutting it off for single wage familes on £44k but dishing it out to dual earners bringing home £87k. Utterly barking.
meh again no..
I benefited from the school system so i comfortable that it needs to be maintained, But it is not everyones right to have kids, Natural selection and by watching any Social animal, the strong breed and procriate, well in our society the well provided for do.
Also we are over populated, and everyone is over educated through the universtity system which has gone wild on courses which in no way should be a degree. but basic education up to A'level is great! Society does need intelligent people. but i don't beleive is hould pay for peoples lack of ability to budget, and cloth and feed there children.
The only thing i really agree with is that the goverment isn't doing it in an even handed way and combined incomes should be taken account of.0 -
There's no such thing as 'over educated' - though I do agree there's a lot of degrees that shouldn't exist out there. Don't confuse being educated with spending time at university.0
-
true good point,
Some of most idiotic people i have met have degree's is some random crap hehe0 -
Thewaylander wrote:Daz555 wrote:
What about education? Why should non-parents subsidise the education of other peoples children? Or for that matter pay for their healthcare?Thewaylander wrote:Interesting one this, Seems to have people devided. My general veiw is people simply shouldn't have children if they can not support them, and all child benefits should be removed.
The answer is that well educated children are a requirement for a healthy society. We can go further - children are a requirement for a healthy society and there is some logic that all members of society should contribute to their welfare.
I had no problem subsidising child benefit before I even considered being a parent and I have no problem with it now.
As for the Govs proposals. Blimey George is utterly barking mad. Cutting it off for single wage familes on £44k but dishing it out to dual earners bringing home £87k. Utterly barking.
meh again no..
I benefited from the school system so i comfortable that it needs to be maintained, But it is not everyones right to have kids, Natural selection and by watching any Social animal, the strong breed and procriate, well in our society the well provided for do.
Also we are over populated, and everyone is over educated through the universtity system which has gone wild on courses which in no way should be a degree. but basic education up to A'level is great! Society does need intelligent people. but i don't beleive is hould pay for peoples lack of ability to budget, and cloth and feed there children.
The only thing i really agree with is that the goverment isn't doing it in an even handed way and combined incomes should be taken account of.
Nonsense. Man existed before the notion of society. Society is man writ large. The rights of mankind to procreate existed before the construction of social mores. You are indeed a massive uneducated tosser.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Very true, it should be based on the household's income, for certain.Daz555 wrote:As for the Govs proposals. Blimey George is utterly barking mad. Cutting it off for single wage familes on £44k but dishing it out to dual earners bringing home £87k. Utterly barking.
The admin costs of establishing that I suspect would be huge, people can swap partners like they do aftershave, however I do agree it is the best way.Stevo 666 wrote:
Anyway, tell me what loopholes you're talking about?
That's a joke right? A tax loop = a half decent accountant.0 -
Sort of - I wanted to see if he had any idea about what he was spouting off about, other than what he'd read in the red tops. Probably not, as he's gone very quietBriggo wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Anyway, tell me what loopholes you're talking about?
That's a joke right? A tax loop = a half decent accountant.
"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:
Sort of - I wanted to see if he had any idea about what he was spouting off about, other than what he'd read in the red tops. Probably not, as he's gone very quietBriggo wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Anyway, tell me what loopholes you're talking about?
That's a joke right? A tax loop = a half decent accountant.
I a half decent accountant (quarter maybe) though not a tax accountant and while self employed man can work the system to maximise his income the average earner even a 40% earner does not have that many options available to them to avoid tax - delay it maybe but not avoid altogether.
Sure there is the old off shore account and so on but those only avoid tax if you have gone through some pretty cmlicated tax avoidance measures to set them up in the first place.
Maybe if there are any true tax accountants on here they could tell me otherwise but generally if you and your partner have a joint income of say 100k you are paying tax on most of it bar your pension subs.Closet jockey wheel pimp whore.0 -
Cleat Eastwood wrote:
Nonsense. Man existed before the notion of society. Society is man writ large. The rights of mankind to procreate existed before the construction of social mores. You are indeed a massive uneducated tosser.
Really? Can you conclusively prove that? We evolved from primates, which live in a society, albeit not as sophisticated as ours. The whole of mankind could not be possible without society and the co-operation of people working towards a common aim.0 -
tenured workers had to ask permission to have kids of their landlord back int he day.
In any case even if it is your god given right to have kids why is it your government given right to have some one pay you to have them - thats the nonsense of that arguement - its irrelevant to child benefits innit.Closet jockey wheel pimp whore.0
