high earners to lose child benefit

Mad Roadie
Mad Roadie Posts: 710
edited October 2010 in The bottom bracket
hooray - its is about time... in a grossly over populated island why are we paying eople to have kids anyway - I hope this is a step towards 1st child only, and eventually no child benefit - if you cant afford to look after and keep kids, dont have any - do expect the state to pick up the tab for irresponsible parenting and 'whoops sh4ggging'

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
«1345678

Comments

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,665
    I hardly think that stopping people in the high tax bracket getting child benefit is going to stop overpopulation.

    Now, if it was scrapped to the Vicky Pollards of this world then it may have a difference...
  • rf6
    rf6 Posts: 323
    NapoleonD wrote:
    I hardly think that stopping people in the high tax bracket getting child benefit is going to stop overpopulation.

    Now, if it was scrapped to the Vicky Pollards of this world then it may have a difference...

    Couldn't agree more.
  • very true NapD - but then again we should'nt be paying it out for kids who dont even live in the UK - thats just too PC to be true
  • SBezza
    SBezza Posts: 2,173
    I don't think people have kids for child benefit, you can't live on it FFS.
  • Mad Roadie wrote:
    hooray - its is about time... in a grossly over populated island why are we paying eople to have kids anyway - I hope this is a step towards 1st child only, and eventually no child benefit - if you cant afford to look after and keep kids, dont have any - do expect the state to pick up the tab for irresponsible parenting and 'whoops sh4ggging'

    5589_diagnosis_wanker.jpg
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,921
    Mad Roadie wrote:
    hooray - its is about time... in a grossly over populated island why are we paying eople to have kids anyway - I hope this is a step towards 1st child only, and eventually no child benefit - if you cant afford to look after and keep kids, dont have any - do expect the state to pick up the tab for irresponsible parenting and 'whoops sh4ggging'

    Who will pay the taxes that provide public services for you in your retirement if people stop having kids? I assume you are prepared to work until you drop?

    I agree with ditching payments to higher tax earners although it will still allow many rich people to claim due to the vagaries of the tax system (see recent story of estate agent paying himself £12k whilst taking up to £10k per month out of his companies assets and therefore being able to claim tax credits and minimise CSA payments).
  • cee
    cee Posts: 4,553
    I agree with high earners not receiving child benefit. And the example on the bbc is perfect...why should someone on £18K with no kids, pay tax which pays a benefit to someone earning upwards of £44K?

    The benefit will be removed from people who earn £44K (the start fo the 40% tax bracket) and above.

    However.....it will not be removed until 2013....why not sooner?

    Why not use the entire household income instead of one parent.

    example..

    2 parents earning £43K each...household income of £86K would still get the benefit.
    2 parents...one earning £45K, the other say £10K, HH Income of £55K would not get the benefit.

    Doesn't make sense!
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • Chip \'oyler
    Chip \'oyler Posts: 2,323
    cee wrote:
    I agree with high earners not receiving child benefit. And the example on the bbc is perfect...why should someone on £18K with no kids, pay tax which pays a benefit to someone earning upwards of £44K?

    The benefit will be removed from people who earn £44K (the start fo the 40% tax bracket) and above.

    However.....it will not be removed until 2013....why not sooner?

    Why not use the entire household income instead of one parent.

    example..

    2 parents earning £43K each...household income of £86K would still get the benefit.
    2 parents...one earning £45K, the other say £10K, HH Income of £55K would not get the benefit.

    Doesn't make sense!

    I think you're deluding yourself if you think politicians actually use any common sense with their policies!
    Expertly coached by http://www.vitessecyclecoaching.co.uk/

    http://vineristi.wordpress.com - the blog for Viner owners and lovers!
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    First the thread about Americans and now this.

    You are the Editor of the Daily Mail and I claim my £5.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • steerpike
    steerpike Posts: 424

    5589_diagnosis_wanker.jpg
    +1
  • ilm_zero7
    ilm_zero7 Posts: 2,213
    as with all threads there is some truth in this - isnt it china where youre only allowed one child? seems there is a step - or several between endless child benefit and one child and no more.


    however I dont condone the direct insults from the photographs - the OP didnt specifically target anyone, so it is OTT
    http://veloviewer.com/SigImage.php?a=3370a&r=3&c=5&u=M&g=p&f=abcdefghij&z=a.png
    Wiliers: Cento Uno/Superleggera R and Zero 7. Bianchi Infinito CV and Oltre XR2
  • camerone
    camerone Posts: 1,232
    why should high earners subsidise low earners children when they pay for their own.
    stop the benefit fraudsters and the more children equals more benefits and save money that way. instead more children equals a ladder up to the top of the housing office pile.

    i am quite happy for high earners to lose child benefit, but the adage of not being able to afford children don't have them needs to apply across the board.
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    Here's a thought: don't have children in the first place if you can't afford to raise them. Or is that too simplistic?
  • Pokerface wrote:
    Here's a thought: don't have children in the first place if you can't afford to raise them. Or is that too simplistic?
    pokerface - thats what i said - but have been slated for it

    +1
  • There's something arsey-versey about this. If you woke Rip van Winkle up from a long sleep and told him that one party wanted to reduce benefits for the better-off and another party was defending them from a ''family'' point of view, would he ever guess which parties were on which side? And if you told him, would he simply think it was a rather strange dream?
  • verylonglegs
    verylonglegs Posts: 4,023
    Mad Roadie wrote:
    pokerface - thats what i said - but have been slated for it

    +1

    Are you relying on people's judgement if they can afford it or do you think the state should get involved even further than benefit distribution?...because it is utterly un-enforceable without you coming across as a right wing lunatic, deciding who breeds according to set criteria? What do you do to prevent those with no money having kids? Sterilise them? It's a given too imo there will be well-rounded adults out there who may not have much cash but would make or are far better parents than some of those considered well off.
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    There are a lot of advanced countries in the world that don't pay child benefits. We have it very good here.
  • Pokerface wrote:
    There are a lot of advanced countries in the world that don't pay child benefits. We have it very good here.
    There are some highly advanced countries that execute mentally subnormal people and have no health service. You could say we have it very right here.
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    There are some highly advanced countries that execute mentally subnormal people and have no health service. You could say we have it very right here.


    They execute mentally superior people too. They don't discriminate. 8)
  • gkerr4
    gkerr4 Posts: 3,408
    i think its wrong and i'm not afraid to say it will affect me personally.

    effectively I've just been landed a 13% hike in the amount of income tax I pay - how the hell can that be right?

    "we're all in it together eh" - yeah right - unless you work hard and manage to retain a job through the tought times and then you will be punished with a significant tax hike!
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,496
    Ever watched the film 'Scream'

    The first scene when Drew Barrymore gets killed.

    That scene was conceived by the director to scare the sh1t out of the audience. If they could kill off the biggest star right at the very start of the film then anything could happen.

    Scrapping the Family Allowance has the very same motivation.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Mad Roadie wrote:
    pokerface - thats what i said - but have been slated for it

    +1

    That's too simplistic by far.

    Young people are starting out in their career. They won't be earning very much. They will often be either saddled with gigantic mortgages, thanks to the previous generation's greed, or (in my situation), paying through the nose for rent and looking forward to a decades of higher taxes to pay off everybody else's debt. Many also have debts from universities.

    So how the hell do you think that people could afford to start a family now, without state help? If you could child benefits, then the effect would be a gigantic demographic mess, with a whole generation going childless, and then nobody to work and pay for pensions in the future.

    And here's another thought - nobody knows what is going to happen to them in the future - 2 years ago I could probably have afforded a child. Now I'm unemployed. If I had had a child when I could afford it, then lost my job, what would you do? Have my child starve?
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    gkerr4 wrote:
    i think its wrong and i'm not afraid to say it will affect me personally.

    effectively I've just been landed a 13% hike in the amount of income tax I pay - how the hell can that be right?

    "we're all in it together eh" - yeah right - unless you work hard and manage to retain a job through the tought times and then you will be punished with a significant tax hike!


    Because you've been treating the benefit as income - and that is a mistake.

    I don't want to disparage anyone at all - and I think it sucks if it affects you - but if you're earning over £45K a year.... I mean - really?! You can't afford to pay for your own kids?


    (Not having any currently of my own - and when I was married and we had kids - we didn't get any money for them... so maybe I find it hard to relate.)
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    johnfinch wrote:

    That's too simplistic by far.

    Young people are starting out in their career. They won't be earning very much. They will often be either saddled with gigantic mortgages, thanks to the previous generation's greed, or (in my situation), paying through the nose for rent and looking forward to a decades of higher taxes to pay off everybody else's debt. Many also have debts from universities.

    So how the hell do you think that people could afford to start a family now, without state help? If you could child benefits, then the effect would be a gigantic demographic mess, with a whole generation going childless, and then nobody to work and pay for pensions in the future.

    And here's another thought - nobody knows what is going to happen to them in the future - 2 years ago I could probably have afforded a child. Now I'm unemployed. If I had had a child when I could afford it, then lost my job, what would you do? Have my child starve?


    Just curious - how much is child benefit? And if it's as little as I think it may be - would it really mean a child would starve without it?

    Plus - in the situation you have mentioned - you still get the benefit.

    (I'm all for the new reforms, just think it has been applied unfairly. Should be based on family income, not personal income.)
  • Just curious - how much is child benefit? And if it's as little as I think it may be - would it really mean a child would starve without it?



    Current weekly amount
    Eldest or only child £20.30
    Additional children - per child £13.40
    Guardian's Allowance - per child £14.30
  • gkerr4
    gkerr4 Posts: 3,408
    well of course its income!! - what else is it?? it gets paid into my account every four weeks - just like my other income!

    do you think people who earn over £45k just wander around with cash to burn or something? - rolling up £20's and smoking them? They're the same as everyone else - mortgage, kids, cars, transport - it pretty much all goes..
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    I earn the equivalent of £16k a year and get by. Not supporting a family, but it's hard to imagine that it would require three times that income to do so.

    Even when I was supporting a family (and made a higher wage) it never all 'just went'.

    So hard for me to sympathize. Again, no offence meant.
  • verylonglegs
    verylonglegs Posts: 4,023
    gkerr4 wrote:
    well of course its income!! - what else is it?? it gets paid into my account every four weeks - just like my other income!

    do you think people who earn over £45k just wander around with cash to burn or something? - rolling up £20's and smoking them? They're the same as everyone else - mortgage, kids, cars, transport - it pretty much all goes..

    Depends on the cost of living in the area and circumstance doesn't it? I remember reading a similar discussion on a message board a while back when these sort of cuts were first mooted and someone who said they were earning around £55k was complaining and said that cutting the child benefit would stop them going to restaurants! People actually think they should have a tax break so they can eat out! I did think he was trolling at first but after a few replies lambasted him he came back and conceded they had a point.
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    Pokerface wrote:
    Here's a thought: don't have children in the first place if you can't afford to raise them. Or is that too simplistic?

    I could afford to raise them until they took £50 a week child benefit off me.

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • gkerr4
    gkerr4 Posts: 3,408

    Depends on the cost of living in the area and circumstance doesn't it? I remember reading a similar discussion on a message board a while back when these sort of cuts were first mooted and someone who said they were earning around £55k was complaining and said that cutting the child benefit would stop them going to restaurants! People actually think they should have a tax break so they can eat out! I did think he was trolling at first but after a few replies lambasted him he came back and conceded they had a point.

    so you'll live with people on the dole going on foreign holidays at the taxpayer expense - but cannot tolerate someone who is earning £55k (who pays around £18k a year in income tax on that) at the point where losing £30 a week can no-longer eat out in restaurants.
    right - that sounds fair..
    oh no, hang on.

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.