Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Mysteryman on 04 October 2010, 14:08:33
-
Our beloved chancellor has just withdrawn child benefit for anyone paying higher rate of income tax, saying it was a 'fair' thing to do.
So if you earn more than £44,000, you will lose it. However, if both partners works and earn, say, £40,000 and £35,000, then they can keep it. Fair?
-
Probably not. However it would be too complicated to administer . This way it is dead easy! Cuts out layers of complexity.
-
I don't think we should encourage anyone to have kids - if you want kids, fine, but don't ask me to pay for your little snot-nosed brats :y
-
Imo he should jsut say that any household with income over £20,000 doesnt get it. It was introduced to give mothers a chance of ensuring their kids didnt go without food etc. regardless of what the husband earned or how much of it he give to the wife in housekeeping. The world is a very different place these days.
It is a start though. The welfare state imo, should largely be dismantled.
The British didnt used to be the kind of people who habitually relied on other citizens handouts to keep them. They used to have pride. The welfare state has done huge damage to the ability of self reliance that this nation was known for.
-
Our beloved chancellor has just withdrawn child benefit for anyone paying higher rate of income tax, saying it was a 'fair' thing to do.
So if you earn more than £44,000, you will lose it. However, if both partners works and earn, say, £40,000 and £35,000, then they can keep it. Fair?
Not really. I just read The Devil's Kitchen's take on it. Judging by the bad language, I think he strongly agrees with you! ;) ;D
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2010/10/gideon-arsehole.html
-
I don't think we should encourage anyone to have kids - if you want kids, fine, but don't ask me to pay for your little snot-nosed brats :y
How very right wing. :y ::) :o ;D ;D
-
I don't think we should encourage anyone to have kids - if you want kids, fine, but don't ask me to pay for your little snot-nosed brats :y
How very right wing. :y ::) :o ;D ;D
I take it Banjax does not have children, Albs. ::) ::)
-
I don't think we should encourage anyone to have kids - if you want kids, fine, but don't ask me to pay for your little snot-nosed brats :y
How very right wing. :y ::) :o ;D ;D
exactly :y
if discouraging tattoed f-wits from rutting long enough to calculate the whole food/air deal is right wing then slap on a funny mustache and call me hitler ;D
-
The same logic can be applied to almost every aspect of the welfare state. ;)
-
I don't think we should encourage anyone to have kids - if you want kids, fine, but don't ask me to pay for your little snot-nosed brats :y
How very right wing. :y ::) :o ;D ;D
I take it Banjax does not have children, Albs. ::) ::)
thankfully :y
but i do pay a shedload for everyone elses from cracker-spawn mini-criminals to the brats of the super-rich - if we're going to talk cuts lets go ;)
-
The same logic can be applied to almost every aspect of the welfare state. ;)
hmmmm - so injured servicemen shouldnt get benefits? i remember everyone getting a tad uptight about a recent story ::)
i dont mind paying for that guy
-
I don't think we should encourage anyone to have kids - if you want kids, fine, but don't ask me to pay for your little snot-nosed brats :y
How very right wing. :y ::) :o ;D ;D
I take it Banjax does not have children, Albs. ::) ::)
thankfully :y
but i do pay a shedload for everyone elses from cracker-spawn mini-criminals to the brats of the super-rich - if we're going to talk cuts lets go ;)
I'm not going to comment on the rest.. but that sentence made me laugh out loud and get funny looks in the office ;D
-
The same logic can be applied to almost every aspect of the welfare state. ;)
hmmmm - so injured servicemen shouldnt get benefits? i remember everyone getting a tad uptight about a recent story ::)
i dont mind paying for that guy
There are exceptions to every rule - and that is definetely one of them imo. ;)
-
The same logic can be applied to almost every aspect of the welfare state. ;)
hmmmm - so injured servicemen shouldnt get benefits? i remember everyone getting a tad uptight about a recent story ::)
i dont mind paying for that guy
There are exceptions to every rule - and that is definetely one of them imo. ;)
you old commie Albs :y
-
I don't think we should encourage anyone to have kids - if you want kids, fine, but don't ask me to pay for your little snot-nosed brats :y
How very right wing. :y ::) :o ;D ;D
exactly :y
if discouraging tattoed f-wits from rutting long enough to calculate the whole food/air deal is right wing then slap on a funny mustache and call me hitler ;D
All right then Adolf, Im inclined to agree with you but as I don't have children (that I know of) I have to disqualify myself from further comment.
-
What other hobbies do the taxman subsidise? ;D
-
I don't think we should encourage anyone to have kids - if you want kids, fine, but don't ask me to pay for your little snot-nosed brats :y
How very right wing. :y ::) :o ;D ;D
exactly :y
if discouraging tattoed f-wits from rutting long enough to calculate the whole food/air deal is right wing then slap on a funny mustache and call me hitler ;D
All right then Adolf, Im inclined to agree with you but as I don't have children (that I know of) I have to disqualify myself from further comment.
i don't see why it should if you pay for them, Z :y
-
Judging by the way certain lib dems have reacted (ie. You're a f**king liar George, you promised you wouldn't touch it), he may not last until 2011, never mind 2013 when this cut is supposed to happen. ;D
-
well its a start,
now if they continue and sort the rest out?
-
well its a start,
now if they continue and sort the rest out?
Yep. I know three people on incapacity benefit, not one of them is actually incapacitated, only between the ears.
-
mmm. I know one who has NEVER held down a job, he's now 50, there's nowt wrong with him cos he rides a Harley, gets a motability car, and goes off on pub crawls for miles with his mates!!
Can EASILY walk a couple of miles without problems.
hope they catch the rotter soon, and remove all his benefits!!
(partners ex.........)
-
mmm. I know one who has NEVER held down a job, he's now 50, there's nowt wrong with him cos he rides a Harley, gets a motability car, and goes off on pub crawls for miles with his mates!!
Can EASILY walk a couple of miles without problems.
hope they catch the rotter soon, and remove all his benefits!!
(partners ex.........)
It seems obvious to me that the poor man is in a bad way. Having to crawl between pubs, must be in agony.
-
Mmmm.
bet he feels no pain at the end of these pub crawls.............medicinal purposes perhaps, funded by the benefit system??
Makes me sick. >:(
-
I'm glad we've got a Tory government back. I only wish they were true conservatives. It's about time we got back to basics in this country and slash alot of benefits. It's beyond a joke now, we are the laughing stock of the world!
I think more people are beginning to realise that the hard working, law abiding, tax paying man goes to work to pay for the fat, slobbish and arrogant layabout, which is an increasing minority.
Labour's socialism has brought this about. Nice work Tony and Gordon. They want everything for free, the only problem is, who's going to pay for it?
Labour have not only lost their credibility for the obvious reasons, but the childish, cringe worthy squabbling they have engaged in since being defeated in the general election.
I wish we had conservatives in charge right across the land, to bring the true meaning of 'social justice', not this twisted idea of Labour.
Bring on the cuts!
I might get accused of being 'right wing', which is clearly not the case.
With that, I'm off to work now to 'earn' some money, and pride, self satisfaction, respect and self worth. Bye
-
Well said.
EARN being the correct term.
EARN=SPEND not GIVE=WASTE
-
Imo he should jsut say that any household with income over £20,000 doesnt get it. It was introduced to give mothers a chance of ensuring their kids didnt go without food etc. regardless of what the husband earned or how much of it he give to the wife in housekeeping. The world is a very different place these days.
It is a start though. The welfare state imo, should largely be dismantled.
The British didnt used to be the kind of people who habitually relied on other citizens handouts to keep them. They used to have pride. The welfare state has done huge damage to the ability of self reliance that this nation was known for.
Perfectly summed up in this piece, I hate paying for scum who think living on the dole is a feasable lifestyle choice >:(
-
Well, I have kids, one of which I still get child benefit for. I have worked all the time since leaving full time education and never yet hit average wage. So, from my perspective, I would love to be in the position where they stopped my child benefit.
I recognise that the 1 x 40+k loses it whilst 2 x 35k still keep it --- at that end of the scale it's unfair. But at my end of the scale, I don't figure in the math, save for the fact that at sub 20k I am paying towards the benefits the 40k+ bod gets!!! Which again isn't fair.
You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time ( or summat like that!).
-
Our beloved chancellor has just withdrawn child benefit for anyone paying higher rate of income tax, saying it was a 'fair' thing to do.
So if you earn more than £44,000, you will lose it. However, if both partners works and earn, say, £40,000 and £35,000, then they can keep it. Fair?
:-?
no need to tell obvious .. Who voted him ;D :D
-
I'm glad we've got a Tory government back. I only wish they were true conservatives. It's about time we got back to basics in this country and slash alot of benefits. It's beyond a joke now, we are the laughing stock of the world!
I think more people are beginning to realise that the hard working, law abiding, tax paying man goes to work to pay for the fat, slobbish and arrogant layabout, which is an increasing minority.
Labour's socialism has brought this about. Nice work Tony and Gordon. They want everything for free, the only problem is, who's going to pay for it?
Labour have not only lost their credibility for the obvious reasons, but the childish, cringe worthy squabbling they have engaged in since being defeated in the general election.
I wish we had conservatives in charge right across the land, to bring the true meaning of 'social justice', not this twisted idea of Labour.
Bring on the cuts!
I might get accused of being 'right wing', which is clearly not the case.
With that, I'm off to work now to 'earn' some money, and pride, self satisfaction, respect and self worth. Bye
A certain J. Major had that idea.... ::) ::) ;)
-
Since my three kids have grown up and (almost) left home, a cut in child benefit doesn't affect me.
However, we'll soon be in territory where they will be looking after me, so I hope no-one's going to cut whatever carer's allowances are going. :)
-
Since my three kids have grown up and (almost) left home, a cut in child benefit doesn't affect me.
However, we'll soon be in territory where they will be looking after me, so I hope no-one's going to cut whatever carer's allowances are going. :)
I'm so not looking forward to old age JB.... :-/
-
It is about time it was cut, I had 3 kids and they were all payed up until they were about 19 I think because they were all in full time education,
To be honest I didn't really NEED it though, it was just the pocket money for the missus. That money could have been better used helping OAP's who are in more need to then the likes of me.
-
The one earner family on £44k + plus loses benefit
The two earner each under £44k family presumably pay sufficient tax between them to more than cover the child benefit.
-
Have total empathy with all those on here who attack our current benefits system-or more accurately those who abuse it. Both me and the other half work because we have to and in order to do so and still have childcare we have seperate days off and different holidays. Ships in the night. Trust me, it aint healthy and there are times when I think Ill look back and regret this very lopsided work/life balance. I work f***ing hard and I cannot begin to communicate my anger/frustration at the results of our benefits system and the lazy f**ks who actually chose not to work as a lifestyle or get themselves pregnant for a place to live or continue to have children that they neglect because we are not a Hitlertarian/Maoist state that would steralize them after the second child wound up at risk and being paid for by the state. HOWEVER, there are genuine needs for benefits sometimes, whether it be through illness or because there really are no jobs in that area. Surely noone would disagree with that? As for the child benefit system, it used to be that earn more than 15k and you got jack , but earn less...Why does it have to be an all or nothing?Why cant it be "graded" and therefore fairer? Why cant those claiming dole be made to work eg coucil maintenance works or helping in hospitals? Is it because such things would put others out of a job? Surely this manpower could be put to some good use? Why isnt the benefits system more of a carrot AND stick-eg a financial carrot to keep mum or dad at home with children until school age and then a gradual financial withdrawal stick to encourage them back into work after ? I know its more complicated than this but the basic principles cant be rocket science can they?And before I get accused of coming over all right wi ng it still p*sses me off that Thatcher allowed so many council houses to be sold off at so far below the market value whilst so many of those who had to buy struggled . Sorry,must be Mr Angry tonight ; ;D.Seriously though, such things are every bit as galling as any other form of social injustice.
-
I agree with almost everything you have said Jerry.The only good reason I can think of for them to do it in the way they have chosen, is the fact that most other options would require the usual army of civil servants to administrate them. And they are trying to move away from that style of governance.There is a good chance that they are soon going to have the problem of these armies of civil servants going on strike in order to prevent the changes which are going to happen.
Personally I feel that it is a bit of a timid move, which is hitting soft targets first, but its a start. ;)
-
No doubt youre right Albs about the reasons being around the administrative costs needed to "drill" down a bit further to better target the abusers and I appreciate like you the need to cut back on the "Big government" of New Labour. However, from a sound business point of view as much as in the interests of fairness, surely it would be worth it? Knee-jerk reactions rarely work. The aspects of big gvt that I ,like many, despised were the empire building/jobs for the boys and self justification elements. Surely no one could object to more accurate targeting? In an ironic way that was what big gvt argued themselves;any accusations around them just giving money away and the systems being open to abuse were often met with the riposte that it would be too complicated,time consuming and costly to investigate individual cases . Clearly it never occurred to them that to do so would pay for itself in that massive savings could be made. (My personal opinion is that much of this was due to the sheer size of the self satisfying big gvt and the fact that sound business principles such as individual accountabilites were not enforced). The danger-as ever-is of swinging now too far the other way.
-
wouldnt argue with any of that Jerry. :y
-
Mmmm.
bet he feels no pain at the end of these pub crawls.............medicinal purposes perhaps, funded by the benefit system??
Makes me sick. >:(
Report him then, Not hard to do.
-
Mmmm.
bet he feels no pain at the end of these pub crawls.............medicinal purposes perhaps, funded by the benefit system??
Makes me sick. >:(
Report him then, Not hard to do.
Waste of time Phil >:( >:( >:( >:( There's an idol tosser up the road from me that's on incompetence pay & has been for twenty years & more.
I've reported him more times than i care to remember & it's no use >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
No doubt youre right Albs about the reasons being around the administrative costs needed to "drill" down a bit further to better target the abusers and I appreciate like you the need to cut back on the "Big government" of New Labour. However, from a sound business point of view as much as in the interests of fairness, surely it would be worth it? Knee-jerk reactions rarely work. The aspects of big gvt that I ,like many, despised were the empire building/jobs for the boys and self justification elements. Surely no one could object to more accurate targeting? In an ironic way that was what big gvt argued themselves;any accusations around them just giving money away and the systems being open to abuse were often met with the riposte that it would be too complicated,time consuming and costly to investigate individual cases . Clearly it never occurred to them that to do so would pay for itself in that massive savings could be made. (My personal opinion is that much of this was due to the sheer size of the self satisfying big gvt and the fact that sound business principles such as individual accountabilites were not enforced). The danger-as ever-is of swinging now too far the other way.
The current round of cuts has no regard to future potential income. Today's target is to CUT COSTS. If they tick that box the bean counters are happy. They are ignoring that, on many fronts, todays savings will cost more in the future in respect of lost revenue and having to pay ex civil servants dole for no return.
We all know that evaded tax, if chased up, would knock a hole in the deficit, but will require increased manpower --- which isn't going to happen.
Contrary to public opinion, most grass root public servants want to do a decent job, but are hog tied by a bloated managment system and, frankly, an incompetent Senior Civil Service.
When these particular cuts hit, who will be getting the backlash in the face ? It won't be the "mandarins" in Whitehall.
-
Mmmm.
bet he feels no pain at the end of these pub crawls.............medicinal purposes perhaps, funded by the benefit system??
Makes me sick. >:(
Report him then, Not hard to do.
Waste of time Phil >:( >:( >:( >:( There's an idol tosser up the road from me that's on incompetence pay & has been for twenty years & more.
I've reported him more times than i care to remember & it's no use >:( >:( >:( >:(
That's a shame, coz I am still thinking of repoerting my old neighber.
-
Might be worth another try now that the friends of the workshy are no longer holding the pursestrings. ;)
-
Dont get me wrong Count, I have someone who works for me part-time, his fulltime job is with the council but whilst we are getting a pay increase this year he isnt and he didnt have one last year either. He, like many, is worried about his job security come March, although the council seems to be giving his dept an increasing workload so maybe he'll be safe.But whilst over the past few years he and his workmates have stayed stationary re payawards etc the middle management tier has been growing. Wont bore you with examples of injustice and waste as Im sure you get the point. Just agreeing that not all workers -or management-within the umbrella of "big government" are the same and that there are many who are hard working and want to do a good job and who now, like many, face uncertain times. I think that one of the dangers of the gamut of proposed cuts will be the growth of privatizations in these sectors. PCTs for example. Get rid of them and a lot of the works they do will still need doing and that will be done by private businesses. Ok, this will create job opportunities for those who will lose their jobs in the coming cuts, and privatization in itself is not a bad thing. But privatization is all about profit and shareholders and unless there is healthy competition I think we will all find a decline in services rather than an improvement. (And before anyone pipes up about the gvt passing the roles of PCTs to GPs being a very good thing because GPs will naturally be more inclined to look after their patients needs just ask yourself how long you have to wait to see "your"GP, or how many late nights they make themselves available for you, or how much they earn compared with you. Make no mistake; GP practices are run as businesses). I do not disagree with the need for cuts or the need for improved efficiency but I do also worry about the casualties of such cuts. Sadly, I cannot but agree with you about the immunityof the Whitehall "mandarins" either.
-
I am quite bemused by the idea of GP,s being in charge of NHS budgets etc. Dont understand what the thinking is behind it. I know a couple of GP,s and they have no experience whatsoever of this type of thing, apart from having a practise manager to do it for them on a much smaller scale. They are nice, middle class, naive (and hugely overpaid for what they do) people, who would get eaten alive in the cut throat world of dealing with large businesses. :-/
-
I am quite bemused by the idea of GP,s being in charge of NHS budgets etc. Dont understand what the thinking is behind it. I know a couple of GP,s and they have no experience whatsoever of this type of thing, apart from having a practise manager to do it for them on a much smaller scale. They are nice, middle class, naive (and hugely overpaid for what they do) people, who would get eaten alive in the cut throat world of dealing with large businesses. :-/
Exactly Albs!!! :y
Last time I posted on this I felt I was being shot down a bit . PCTs are far from perfect but we need to find a viable alternative and the idea of passing the role to "groups of GPS" and everything will be OK seems incredibly naive. All that will happen is that they wont have the time nor experience to take over these roles and so enter the private companies offering to do the jobs for them.
-
most GPs will admit, they are good at medicine, but pay a practice manager to do the buisiness side of things.
-
Whilst i'm not in favour of penalizing the "rich/richer" for thier success & resent them in no way on 44k you don't NEED that few quid a week. Yes i suppose it's a tad unfair but we need to claw back a huge debt & have to start somewhere. Any saving is going to upset someone.
Once again i'm not racist but a bleeding heart do gooder on the radio today said this will hurt Bangladesh families who by thier nature like to have lots of children & happen to live in high rental property areas.
Well would'nt we all like to have that choice & be paid for it?
Yours, a worker. ::)
-
Whilst i'm not in favour of penalizing the "rich/richer" for thier success & resent them in no way on 44k you don't NEED that few quid a week. Yes i suppose it's a tad unfair but we need to claw back a huge debt & have to start somewhere. Any saving is going to upset someone.
Once again i'm not racist but a bleeding heart do gooder on the radio today said this will hurt Bangladesh families who by thier nature like to have lots of children & happen to live in high rental property areas.
Well would'nt we all like to have that choice & be paid for it?
Yours, a worker. ::)
Not quite in that arena but, we at work, have been muttering recently >:( when doing financial checks of some families find that their net income is more than ours, and that is on top of rent and council house benefit............. :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
-
Whilst i'm not in favour of penalizing the "rich/richer" for thier success & resent them in no way on 44k you don't NEED that few quid a week. Yes i suppose it's a tad unfair but we need to claw back a huge debt & have to start somewhere. Any saving is going to upset someone.
Once again i'm not racist but a bleeding heart do gooder on the radio today said this will hurt Bangladesh families who by thier nature like to have lots of children & happen to live in high rental property areas.
Well would'nt we all like to have that choice & be paid for it?
Yours, a worker. ::)
Not quite in that arena but, we at work, have been muttering recently >:( when doing financial checks of some families find that their net income is more than ours, and that is on top of rent and council house benefit............. :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
Exactly. Once again i'm really not racist, i'd shout about it if i was & not care who i offended. I embrace multi culture & honestly could'nt care less who chooses to live here if they are self sufficient, as many are. They bring us food, music, fashion, are hard working & have a place here.
Unlike many English white folk who choose to have a dozen kids & are still tucked up in bed when i leave my house on a cold dark morning. Sorry but it pees me off. I'd love to stay in bed but can't so why the flip should they? >:(
-
I am quite bemused by the idea of GP,s being in charge of NHS budgets etc. Dont understand what the thinking is behind it. I know a couple of GP,s and they have no experience whatsoever of this type of thing, apart from having a practise manager to do it for them on a much smaller scale. They are nice, middle class, naive (and hugely overpaid for what they do) people, who would get eaten alive in the cut throat world of dealing with large businesses. :-/
The press is reporting this very out of context.
What they are actually doing is allowing the GP to have control over which hospital gets yours and my pre-paid money (because the NHS is NOT free) for 'work to be done'.
For example, if you needed a hip replacement, the GP effectively can decide that he is sending his patients to hospital X rathr than Y. :y
A bit of competition, a good thing I think.
As for the child benefit, they can keep it, I dont really need it but, I really dont like seeing the great unwashed work shy romping round smoking, drinking and wearing fancy trainers and new cloths that you and I have paid for.....some of which I cant afford myself!
-
I'm not racist.
But....
;D ;D ;D
people actually still say that - brilliant :y
-
I'm not racist.
But....
;D ;D ;D
people actually still say that - brilliant :y
a bit like saying,, "no offence but"
-
Yep,"But" is such a great word isnt it, especially when followed by that pregnant pause ;D ;D
The issues debated here are all around the "nanny state" and the death of what used to be called the good old "protestant work ethic" (no offence to catholics/muslims etc ;D). The plain fact is that-arguments over relative rights of pay and the rich/poor divide aside-it is those in work who pay 23% or whatever of their wages in tax and NI that support the benefits system . Im sure that none of us would bemoan certain groups the bennefits they get, but it sticks in the craw when we can all see (and thats the moot point ,because its so bloody obvious and shameless) flagrent abuses of the system all around us. A key factor in Labours fall no doubt.
-
I don't think we should encourage anyone to have kids - if you want kids, fine, but don't ask me to pay for your little snot-nosed brats :y
How very right wing. :y ::) :o ;D ;D
I take it Banjax does not have children, Albs. ::) ::)
thankfully :y
but i do pay a shedload for everyone elses from cracker-spawn mini-criminals to the brats of the super-rich - if we're going to talk cuts lets go ;)
Personally I don't get child benefits, but are you saying anyone that does their child must be a mini criminal and they're all snot nosed little brats? Or is it all children that are those things? That's how it reads to me, now I hope you wouldn't refer to everyones children like that?
-
mmm. I know one who has NEVER held down a job, he's now 50, there's nowt wrong with him cos he rides a Harley, gets a motability car, and goes off on pub crawls for miles with his mates!!
Can EASILY walk a couple of miles without problems.
hope they catch the rotter soon, and remove all his benefits!!
(partners ex.........)
Shop him - rat on a rat
-
Dont get me wrong Count, I have someone who works for me part-time, his fulltime job is with the council but whilst we are getting a pay increase this year he isnt and he didnt have one last year either. He, like many, is worried about his job security come March, although the council seems to be giving his dept an increasing workload so maybe he'll be safe.But whilst over the past few years he and his workmates have stayed stationary re payawards etc the middle management tier has been growing. Wont bore you with examples of injustice and waste as Im sure you get the point. Just agreeing that not all workers -or management-within the umbrella of "big government" are the same and that there are many who are hard working and want to do a good job and who now, like many, face uncertain times. I think that one of the dangers of the gamut of proposed cuts will be the growth of privatizations in these sectors. PCTs for example. Get rid of them and a lot of the works they do will still need doing and that will be done by private businesses. Ok, this will create job opportunities for those who will lose their jobs in the coming cuts, and privatization in itself is not a bad thing. But privatization is all about profit and shareholders and unless there is healthy competition I think we will all find a decline in services rather than an improvement. (And before anyone pipes up about the gvt passing the roles of PCTs to GPs being a very good thing because GPs will naturally be more inclined to look after their patients needs just ask yourself how long you have to wait to see "your"GP, or how many late nights they make themselves available for you, or how much they earn compared with you. Make no mistake; GP practices are run as businesses). I do not disagree with the need for cuts or the need for improved efficiency but I do also worry about the casualties of such cuts. Sadly, I cannot but agree with you about the immunityof the Whitehall "mandarins" either.
Completely with you there Jerry.
-
you want kids you pay for them ;)
-
you want kids you pay for them ;)
I'm in totally 100% agreement here :y
-
If someone earns over 44k they really shouldn't complain about losing their Child Benefit. It might be a handy top up, but seeing it this way is still a 'something for nothing' mind set & no different to the mind set of those whom they most resent, ie. those who choose benefits as a lifestyle choice...
Those on higher incomes >44k are sending out a very bad message if they complain about this measure. It's like saying I want it because "I'm entitled to it" which is the very attitude that has led this country down the pan. Yes they pay more tax but surely this is all the more reason, to want to see it spent, on the most necessary things?
Although every parent is entitled to CB, it doesn't automatically land in your bank account. You have to fill out a lengthy form to claim it... If my individual income was >44k I wouldn't fill out the form!!! If a very high earner moans about losing £20 pwk and then calls a single mum 'benefit scum' (for example) that makes them a hypocrite IMO.
Is the new system fair? NO but it is workable...
i) Tax Band vs Entitlement = easy!
ii) Means testing every joint income family = huge waste of resources & even more tax payers money!
My joint family income is <26k... swmbo is plod, I can't return to work (waiting for neuro-surgery). We give the Child benefit to my Son... "CHILD" benefit, not beer money!!!
-
I should add that I do think the 44K bit is poorly thought out, it should be on joint income not any single income.
They already have this info via the tax credits scheme.
-
Of course it should, this isn't rocket science, they've been forced to backtrack on this now ::)
-
I don't think we should encourage anyone to have kids - if you want kids, fine, but don't ask me to pay for your little snot-nosed brats :y
How very right wing. :y ::) :o ;D ;D
I take it Banjax does not have children, Albs. ::) ::)
thankfully :y
but i do pay a shedload for everyone elses from cracker-spawn mini-criminals to the brats of the super-rich - if we're going to talk cuts lets go ;)
Personally I don't get child benefits, but are you saying anyone that does their child must be a mini criminal and they're all snot nosed little brats? Or is it all children that are those things? That's how it reads to me, now I hope you wouldn't refer to everyones children like that?
it's a from/to statement - so one extreme to the other and everyone in between :y