FabSwingers.com forum: Child benefit changes

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Just thought this may be of some interest to some people. The forthcoming changes to Child Benefit mean that if either parent earns between £50k and £60k p.a. Child Benefit payments will be reduced on a sliding scale. Over £60k and you will not qualify for it at all. However, those on £50k-£60k will be required to complete a Tax Return in order for HMRC to calculate how much of the Child Benefit paid they will recover through tax. Those on £60k+ need to opt out or face a tax bill for all Child Benefit received in that tax year. This can be done on-line on the HMRC website. They were supposed to write out to all households affected but it seems that they are not as good at sending letters as they are at taking your money!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

oh to be earning that much in the first place... i wish!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"oh to be earning that much in the first place... i wish!

so true if i was earning that much i wouldnt need child benefit

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"oh to be earning that much in the first place... i wish!

so true if i was earning that much i wouldnt need child benefit "

thats how id see it too

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"oh to be earning that much in the first place... i wish!

so true if i was earning that much i wouldnt need child benefit

thats how id see it too"

some just see it as free money not to help out

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I personally think it is unfair and should be hitting higher earners.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

But apparently is expected to save approximately 2 billion pounds a year, so all in all, is that such a bad thing ?…

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Think child benefit should only be paid to low income families, or a low wage earner. I do earn more than that and have to pay 45% tax was 50% why should people earning 50k+ get my tax I would be ashamed to even claim it!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"oh to be earning that much in the first place... i wish!

so true if i was earning that much i wouldnt need child benefit "

People earning that much shouldn't need child benefit to help them make ends meet

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"But apparently is expected to save approximately 2 billion pounds a year, so all in all, is that such a bad thing ?…

Think of all the extra money spent on sorting out incorrect tax returns

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *f3_coupleCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff

It is possible for couples can earn up to £99,999 between them and not loose any Child Benefit.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"oh to be earning that much in the first place... i wish!

so true if i was earning that much i wouldnt need child benefit

thats how id see it too"

what if you lived in central London, or somewhere else with extremely high property prices/cost of living etc..?

only 1 income is enough to lose the benefit, which make the way they have done it a bit of a mess as 2 joint earners can bring in just below the threshold each..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think it's ridiculous that they receive benefits on that kind of salary. I would bring the cut off down to about £35-40k.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"oh to be earning that much in the first place... i wish!

so true if i was earning that much i wouldnt need child benefit

thats how id see it too

what if you lived in central London, or somewhere else with extremely high property prices/cost of living etc..?

beleive me i do know what its like with high prices, but if u can earn 60,0000 alone does it really make that much difference

only 1 income is enough to lose the benefit, which make the way they have done it a bit of a mess as 2 joint earners can bring in just below the threshold each.. "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I understand its very tempting to criticise any cost saving initiative where a degree of disparity still exists between those directly effected ….

But when its done without putting forward an coherent and effective alternative solution that nobody will object too it becomes just another moan…

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"oh to be earning that much in the first place... i wish!

so true if i was earning that much i wouldnt need child benefit

thats how id see it too

what if you lived in central London, or somewhere else with extremely high property prices/cost of living etc..?

beleive me i do know what its like with high prices, but if u can earn 60,0000 alone does it really make that much difference

only 1 income is enough to lose the benefit, which make the way they have done it a bit of a mess as 2 joint earners can bring in just below the threshold each.. "

it may well make a difference to some, clearly that would be their perception based on their particular circumstances..

like all benefits there will be those who dont need it and those who do..

as with winter fuel payments etc..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

I agree they should not get it, also cut their tax to standard tax at the same time...

then it is all fair

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"I think it's ridiculous that they receive benefits on that kind of salary. I would bring the cut off down to about £35-40k. "

well that is the arguement with "universal benefits"..... you can get them regardless of circumstance...

child benefit is one......

winter fuel payments are another....

if it was me.... anyone who falls into the higher tax bracket shouldn't get child benefit....

the higher tax band kicks in at just about 45K..... the average uk salary is around 21k...

to offset that... i wouldn't mind seeing like they do in other countries, seeing childcare cost being able to counter against tax... thus encouraging more people to go out and work...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It is possible for couples can earn up to £99,999 between them and not loose any Child Benefit."

Exactly...but if you have a family where one earns 60k and the other earns a small amount or stays at a home caring for children, they get nothing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Who should receive Child Benefit is always a contentious issue which could be debated until the cows come home. Those people on higher incomes won't necessarily have been earning that much over the years and given that Child Benefit is now paid directly into bank accounts I'm not entirely sure how they would have opted out anyway.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"It is possible for couples can earn up to £99,999 between them and not loose any Child Benefit."

in theory... as soon as you hit individually £50,000 you start to loose child benefit on a sliding scale, once one person gets to £60,000 they lose all child benefit...

so you have the situation where if one person earns £60,000 there is no child benefit.... but if both people earn £49,999 each, they will keep all the child benefit

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I think it's ridiculous that they receive benefits on that kind of salary. I would bring the cut off down to about £35-40k.

well that is the arguement with "universal benefits"..... you can get them regardless of circumstance...

child benefit is one......

winter fuel payments are another....

if it was me.... anyone who falls into the higher tax bracket shouldn't get child benefit....

the higher tax band kicks in at just about 45K..... the average uk salary is around 21k...

to offset that... i wouldn't mind seeing like they do in other countries, seeing childcare cost being able to counter against tax... thus encouraging more people to go out and work..."

In the UK you can get tax relief on child care costs through the nursery voucher scheme. A maximum of £247 per month can be paid to the relevant service provider which is then exempt from tax as it is deducted from salary.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imply_SensualMan
over a year ago

warrington

The whole thing has been so badly managed it seems untrue - the unfairness of a household losing it if one of them stays at home and the ther earns more than 60K, compared to a family where both adults work and earn 45k each is a disgrace.

The opt out situation and then having to do tax returns is also a joke, how inefficient are they trying to make it? The savings they 'expect' are going to offset by a huge administrative machine that has to work in the background to manage it all - the cynic in me thinks its a way of gaining some support by cutting benefits from the high earners, but also by keeping public sector jobs alive at the same time.

Surely, the Inland Revenue holds all earning information for households - so base the whole thing on a household income, not on individuals. Then simply cut it off and give people a way of challenging the decisions if they want to - or is that too easy?

I agree it needs to be cut from higher earners, as I do with all benefits paid to working people - all should be means tested, as a country we have data to show what people earn, we should use it more and we could save a fortune.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This looks like it could be a hot issue

I'm on a low income and my wife works almost as many hours as myself the kids think that they belong to a single parent family as we have to alternate between us,the amount of benefits we get is tiny about £40 a week it would be more beneficial for the Mrs to pack in work so claim more but we aren't that kind of people,anyone earning over £50k shouldn't get any kind of Benefits

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"This looks like it could be a hot issue

It seems that everyone will have their own idea of what is fair. Given that higher earners pay a higher level of income tax that could also be considered unfair. Of those affected by the changes the main issue seems to be the way it is being levied and administered.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *plpxp2Couple
over a year ago

Middlesbrough

So it will save 2 billion to no doubt help fund the bar at Westminster, second homes and ministerial cars

Seriously it would be very interesting to know how much the saving will actually cost. There's all the administrations cost in terms of processing returns, recovering payments and chasing folks that haven't made a return.

Then there's two billion less money being spent, less tax revenues and jobs in the country. Unless the 2 billion is being returned to those awfully nice people that pay shed loads of tax and get nothing back.........silly I know

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"oh to be earning that much in the first place... i wish!

so true if i was earning that much i wouldnt need child benefit "

Same here bleeding rich freeloaders .. Lol

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes that would be much fairer if we didn't have to pay tax through the nose!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not forgetting how much blooming tax you still have to pay when dead

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *UNCHBOXMan
over a year ago

folkestone

"This looks like it could be a hot issue

Higher earners do not always pay higher levels of income tax. If you have a clever enough accountant, you can work it so that a millionaire can actually pay less income tax than their cleaner.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"This looks like it could be a hot issue

"
I am in favour of this - except perhaps in areas (eg some parts of London) where living costs are significantly higher the threshold should be adjusted.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"oh to be earning that much in the first place... i wish!

so true if i was earning that much i wouldnt need child benefit

Same here bleeding rich freeloaders .. Lol"

Are they the same bleeding rich freeloaders who pay almost half of their income back in tax? Oh and I'm not one of them

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I am a large wage earner and am defo no free loader! As a high rate tax payer I feel it is unfair for people earning over 50+ getting it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mileyBWoman
over a year ago

Northwood

If I was earning that much I would neither want not feel right taking child benefit.

However, I really do hate the fact that it seems acceptable for people to breed without thought of how to support the children they're creating and and expecting the government to foot the bill. Wrong wrong wrong. Irresponsible and wrong.

I could afford one and one only so that's all I had. Why can't people think, plan and use contraception .... *shakes head*

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"This looks like it could be a hot issue

Higher earners do not always pay higher levels of income tax. If you have a clever enough accountant, you can work it so that a millionaire can actually pay less income tax than their cleaner. "

True but some "high" earners, as employees, are taxed on a PAYE basis. On the whole, the scenario that you describe would apply to those who earn enough to employ an accountant to manage their affairs. I'm not convinced someone earning £50k would do so.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Pay it for the first 2 children only, and do not pay it for children living in Poland if one off their parents works here.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well this lot running the country are slowly but surely "Demonising" people on low incomes & benefits.....

The cases highlighted by papers like the DM & tory MP`s like Dave, are in the minority, they want to starts a bloomin class war...

If your paying into the system surely you should be entitled to get something in return.

The anomalies like EU workers being able to send money back home for kids not living in the UK should be stopped tho.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Seems to be the richer you are the more you don't need handouts.

It's like politicians being given money for second homes when they are on stupid money as it is and general public struggle with paying just the one home.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aris23Woman
over a year ago

France

OK....please excuse me while I have a little whinge on this general subject. Feel free to scroll past!

I'm a single 'parent' and earn just over the 'average' salary for this country. Two years ago I had to take on the care of my grandson to prevent him going into a children's home after his mother rejected him.

I am just grateful that I can get child benefit because without that and child tax credit I would not be able to pay for his childcare so I can go to work.

The little I do get in those benefits pays for 60% of his childcare costs but without it I'd not be able to work and would soon be homeless.

Out of my pocket I have to feed and clothe him and pay for the month-to-month expenses associated with a child. I also have to pay my mortgage and run a car so I can get to my workplace. Had I taken on a foster child the state would be paying me a small fortune a month!!

I feel quite cross with families who choose to sit on their backsides on the dole, with more children than they can financially manage, with benefits funded by the income tax that I pay.

I haven't had a holiday in years, all my annual leave is spent caring for my child during the school holidays whilst the childminder has 4 weeks away in the sun. I struggle to make every penny count to keep us going.

Thank god she only abandoned one of her children and not both of them because under this governments policies I'd be up sh1t creek without a paddle.

Thank you - whinge over

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

"OK....please excuse me while I have a little whinge on this general subject. Feel free to scroll past!

I am just grateful that I can get child benefit because without that and child tax credit I would not be able to pay for his childcare so I can go to work.

The little I do get in those benefits pays for 60% of his childcare costs but without it I'd not be able to work and would soon be homeless.

I feel quite cross with families who choose to sit on their backsides on the dole, with more children than they can financially manage, with benefits funded by the income tax that I pay.

Thank god she only abandoned one of her children and not both of them because under this governments policies I'd be up sh1t creek without a paddle.

Thank you - whinge over

a really well balanced post

all the very best to you and yours

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I thought they had already done this. At least it was talked about before

I can't see how the money really makes a difference for high earners. Yet to me it all goes to my kids.

Cali

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"OK....please excuse me while I have a little whinge on this general subject. Feel free to scroll past!

I am just grateful that I can get child benefit because without that and child tax credit I would not be able to pay for his childcare so I can go to work.

The little I do get in those benefits pays for 60% of his childcare costs but without it I'd not be able to work and would soon be homeless.

I feel quite cross with families who choose to sit on their backsides on the dole, with more children than they can financially manage, with benefits funded by the income tax that I pay.

Thank god she only abandoned one of her children and not both of them because under this governments policies I'd be up sh1t creek without a paddle.

Thank you - whinge over

Most people earning £50-100k a year are contributing significantly through PAYE and NI and most likely have done for years. In places like London with property and rent very expensive that salary if you have a family can disappear very quickly. Should these hard working families who contribute positively to society be discriminated against? I don't believe so. Set the bar higher and target the super high net worth individuals who use London as something of a tax haven.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As I understand it you can earn 49.999.99p and get full chb you earn 50.000 to 60.000 its means tested.

So a couple can earn nearly 100.000 and still get full chb but if that couple earn 60.001 with one earner getting all the money they'd get nothing .....

How can that be fair ? And yes I'm with a lot on this who would love to be earning that kind of money .....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Child benefit is a none sense - full stop. Does any other government in the world pay people to have children? Talk about encouraging a lack of personal and parental responsibility.

All you lot moaning about people who get paid over 50,000 not getting anything need to remember that social payments/handouts/benefits (whatever you choose to call them) come from tax paid by you, me and everyone else.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

It has been interesting to note that a larger number of people have opted out of receiving child benefit than anticipated. The simple reason being that as you get closer to £60k you end up paying back more than £1 for the £1 you receive.

I am also interested to see how the policy will affect wage rises. At what point do you make the decision to not accept a pay increase? This will have some interesting knock on effects.

My concern is always for the children. The reason this was a universal benefit may have reduced but have not gone away. As with all benefits that have an absolute cut off point we will see the anomaly of a family on £99k a year with two children receiving full child benefit and a family with three children on £52k a year struggling. Children are expensive. London is really expensive. The kids don't have a choice about growing up here.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

the biggest arguement this week isn't going to be this... but will end up being the benefits cap....

p.s I am all for that as well....

it is being proposed that the benefit cap will be at £500 per week.... so £26,000 per year...

labour will vote against it, as will a lot of lib dems....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Child benefit is a none sense - full stop. Does any other government in the world pay people to have children? Talk about encouraging a lack of personal and parental responsibility.

It's hardly a lot for each child. It's only 10quid roughly for each extra child.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm sure this debate could run and run. Roll on the next election when hopefully (although I doubt it) the policies of each party will be clear and we can vote.

I believe benefits for those most in need remain a key reason why this country is still such a good place to be, but the abuse of the system and the perception that support is a right is symptomatic of everything that is wrong.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"OK....please excuse me while I have a little whinge on this general subject. Feel free to scroll past!

I am just grateful that I can get child benefit because without that and child tax credit I would not be able to pay for his childcare so I can go to work.

The little I do get in those benefits pays for 60% of his childcare costs but without it I'd not be able to work and would soon be homeless.

I feel quite cross with families who choose to sit on their backsides on the dole, with more children than they can financially manage, with benefits funded by the income tax that I pay.

Thank god she only abandoned one of her children and not both of them because under this governments policies I'd be up sh1t creek without a paddle.

Thank you - whinge over

I completely empathise with you. This does not help your case but in some countries eg Germany, child benefit is paid to the grandparent if the child lives in that household.

Maybe something that should be considered in the UK?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"Child benefit is a none sense - full stop. Does any other government in the world pay people to have children? Talk about encouraging a lack of personal and parental responsibility.

It is a simple fact that high earners contribute more in both cash and percentage terms and yet they see proportionately the least benefit from those payments to the State. Before you start moaning about "the rich" (not that anyone earning 50,000 - 100,000 a year PAYE is rich) remember that they contribute significantly more than the "poor" who complain so much about the "rich""
There are other countries, including Germany where child benefit is paid. It is income linked and the parent needs to spend the "majority of time" in the country to qualify.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"Child benefit is a none sense - full stop. Does any other government in the world pay people to have children? Talk about encouraging a lack of personal and parental responsibility.

It's hardly a lot for each child. It's only 10quid roughly for each extra child. "
Rule of thumb, in Germany you get for the first and second child 184 Euro, 190 Euro for the 4th and 215 Euro for any further child per month.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Get a job don't rely on benefits

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Get a job don't rely on benefits "

Exactly

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"Get a job don't rely on benefits "
Not sure to which post you refer but just to say that child benefit is actually paid whether people work or not. It is not an easy way of making money - it is paid in recognition of the fact that children have needs in terms of clothing, education and welfare?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Get a job don't rely on benefits Not sure to which post you refer but just to say that child benefit is actually paid whether people work or not. It is not an easy way of making money - it is paid in recognition of the fact that children have needs in terms of clothing, education and welfare? "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"Get a job don't rely on benefits

Exactly"

I was lucky as I have always worked and never had to claim any benefit although I would maintain that most of us are only 1 to 3 months away from being unemployed, especially in the current climate.

I dislike people who milk the system as much as the next person... I just want to emphasises once again that monies paid for children are there for a reason - and should be spent on those children.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Well this lot running the country are slowly but surely "Demonising" people on low incomes & benefits.....

The cases highlighted by papers like the DM & tory MP`s like Dave, are in the minority, they want to starts a bloomin class war...

If your paying into the system surely you should be entitled to get something in return.

The anomalies like EU workers being able to send money back home for kids not living in the UK should be stopped tho."

How is this policy demonising people on low incomes? The govt have set a fairly low bar and said anyone earning more than that wont get child benefit. How does that demonise low income families?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Get a job don't rely on benefits "

Also I think you find the point is, people have got a job and the discussion is whether they should receive child benefit for their children, after of course they have paid their taxes if they earn over 50k!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just how many Eastern Europeans have ever complained about getting, or not getting, benefits? My guess would be none because they are all too busy working hard rather than complaining.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This looks like it could be a hot issue

So allow anyone earning 50,000 a year plus to give up the best part of half their salary but not permit them to have anything in return?

Does that sound fair to you?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It is possible for couples can earn up to £99,999 between them and not loose any Child Benefit.

in theory... as soon as you hit individually £50,000 you start to loose child benefit on a sliding scale, once one person gets to £60,000 they lose all child benefit...

so you have the situation where if one person earns £60,000 there is no child benefit.... but if both people earn £49,999 each, they will keep all the child benefit"

And that is what really pi**es me off about this. Everything else is done on household income. Why should this not be the same.

Earn £55,000 and your partner earns £10,000 and you lose half your benefit, another couple both earn £48,000 a year and they get the lot. Unfair to say the least.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oulou45Woman
over a year ago

Bucks

I chose to only have 1 child as knew we couldn't afford more. We both worked but were low earners cb came in handy. We had friends who had 7 children lived on benifits well actualy expected them to me that is wrong. They could afford to go out 5 nites a week. When it came to school trips they pleaded povity.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Higher earners do not always pay higher levels of income tax. If you have a clever enough accountant, you can work it so that a millionaire can actually pay less income tax than their cleaner. "

Although the bar may be set quite low on this web site, 50,000 a year is not a huge salary and no one on PAYE has the ability to offset tax.

We are talking about mainly wage earners her, not the super rich.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Anyone who earns over 50k a year single or a couple and claim benefits and are moaning about loseing them are simply living above they're means and are greedy !

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I chose to only have 1 child as knew we couldn't afford more. We both worked but were low earners cb came in handy. We had friends who had 7 children lived on benifits well actualy expected them to me that is wrong. They could afford to go out 5 nites a week. When it came to school trips they pleaded povity. "

it is that type of behaviour that makes me so mad. You are clearly responsible and thoughtful and take responsibility for your own decisions, having thought them through. Others do whatever they want and expect a hand out as a right.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Hubby's _iew on benefits.

Pay those who are claiming, when they could/should be at work in some capacity, N.M.W for 37.5hrs a week.

Dont give them any top-ups and let them pay their own bills/rent etc.

When and if they get into work, then the top-up of working tax credits, council tax allowance etc should come into effect. These top-ups are the 'reward' of working.

Oh, as for the child benefit claims. Everybody or every family should be entitled to recieve it. However, should families opt out of receiving it, their personal tax allowance could be increased by say £500 - £1000.

Higher earners pay plenty enough tax and NI anyways.

Oh and it should be household not individual incomes

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *istressdebssubCouple
over a year ago

cambridge

"The whole thing has been so badly managed it seems untrue - the unfairness of a household losing it if one of them stays at home and the ther earns more than 60K, compared to a family where both adults work and earn 45k each is a disgrace.

if the uk wasn't such an easy touch for every tom dick and harry that wants to come and live here there would be enough money to go around . we bend over backwards to to give everything possible to those who come here while our pensioners live in poverty . as for high earners there are many just over the 40% threshold that would be far better off just under it!at that level any hard earned bonus is also taxed at 40% .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Anyone who earns over 50k a year single or a couple and claim benefits and are moaning about loseing them are simply living above they're means and are greedy !"

When you find yourself living in an area of the country where you have to pay well over £200,000 for a 2 bed house to be anywhere near where you work and your council tax on that house is nearly 200 quid a month come back and make your point again.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Anyone who earns over 50k a year single or a couple and claim benefits and are moaning about loseing them are simply living above they're means and are greedy !

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Anyone who earns over 50k a year single or a couple and claim benefits and are moaning about loseing them are simply living above they're means and are greedy !"

It's just not true in London. The average is around £25k in London but to buy even the cheapest place you need to earn £46k. The rental market is so overheated that I have had people tell me they have had to put in sealed bids to rent a flat. I have seen families living in one room in multi-occupancy houses and paying £750 a month for that one room.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Anyone who earns over 50k a year single or a couple and claim benefits and are moaning about loseing them are simply living above they're means and are greedy !

In my previous house it was £255 per month!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I personally think it is unfair and should be hitting higher earners."

The high earners at top of tree received a tax cut worth approx 180k shows priorities this crew and they say we are all in it together.

Wankers.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It should be measured on household income like the child tax credits. End Of.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Mr has recently received a letter from the inland revenue to say that due to his earnings alone we will not receive the child benefit, and rightly so! Pretty much in the same way that wealthy pensioners should not receive their winter fuel allowance, I read recently that Alan Sugar tried to send his payment back but there is no process for this. No wonder this country has no money, too much of it gets wasted.

That said I do disagree with the possibility of both parents earning £49k and still qualifying for the payment, whereas we would not earn that figure combined but lose ours, seems a little unfair.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

Higher earners do not always pay higher levels of income tax. If you have a clever enough accountant, you can work it so that a millionaire can actually pay less income tax than their cleaner.

Although the bar may be set quite low on this web site, 50,000 a year is not a huge salary and no one on PAYE has the ability to offset tax.

We are talking about mainly wage earners her, not the super rich.

actually if you want the exact figures... I'll use it starting april 2013...

single persons tax allowance.... £9440

you pay 20% on any earnings on between £0 and £32010 above the single persons allowance....

so actually you don't start paying 40% tax till you earn £41,450.....

so lets not kid ourselves here.... those affect by the changes in child benefit actually only touch the top 15% of earners......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i yhen think next on the list need to be people who have paid no tax , mainly people who just turn up and take take take, perhaps if the government decided to no longer house and give them all kinds of benefits we wouldnt be having to worry about taking from tax payers

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uncouple981Couple
over a year ago

ayrshire

"It is possible for couples can earn up to £99,999 between them and not loose any Child Benefit.

in theory... as soon as you hit individually £50,000 you start to loose child benefit on a sliding scale, once one person gets to £60,000 they lose all child benefit...

so you have the situation where if one person earns £60,000 there is no child benefit.... but if both people earn £49,999 each, they will keep all the child benefit"

I don't understand why that is acceptable. It should be on total household earnings.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *am123Man
over a year ago

essex chelmsford

"I think it's ridiculous that they receive benefits on that kind of salary. I would bring the cut off down to about £35-40k. "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *am123Man
over a year ago

essex chelmsford

"It is possible for couples can earn up to £99,999 between them and not loose any Child Benefit.

in theory... as soon as you hit individually £50,000 you start to loose child benefit on a sliding scale, once one person gets to £60,000 they lose all child benefit...

so you have the situation where if one person earns £60,000 there is no child benefit.... but if both people earn £49,999 each, they will keep all the child benefit

I don't understand why that is acceptable. It should be on total household earnings.

X"
thats not the case its 50k per house not each

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inktherapyCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"It is possible for couples can earn up to £99,999 between them and not loose any Child Benefit.

in theory... as soon as you hit individually £50,000 you start to loose child benefit on a sliding scale, once one person gets to £60,000 they lose all child benefit...

so you have the situation where if one person earns £60,000 there is no child benefit.... but if both people earn £49,999 each, they will keep all the child benefit

I don't understand why that is acceptable. It should be on total household earnings.

It is a strange situation. We are in the situation where I do not work and he earns enough to not qualify at all for any child benefit under the new rules. We have 4 children

Our neighbours earn a combined salary of more than his with one child but both are just under the limit to receive full child benefit. Therefore they will receive it all for one child despite earning more than us with a 4 child household.

I'm not saying that we need it/ deserve it in any way - but the new rules are very flawed...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"It is possible for couples can earn up to £99,999 between them and not loose any Child Benefit.

in theory... as soon as you hit individually £50,000 you start to loose child benefit on a sliding scale, once one person gets to £60,000 they lose all child benefit...

so you have the situation where if one person earns £60,000 there is no child benefit.... but if both people earn £49,999 each, they will keep all the child benefit

I don't understand why that is acceptable. It should be on total household earnings.

thats not the case its 50k per house not each

It's £50k each.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inktherapyCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"It is possible for couples can earn up to £99,999 between them and not loose any Child Benefit.

in theory... as soon as you hit individually £50,000 you start to loose child benefit on a sliding scale, once one person gets to £60,000 they lose all child benefit...

so you have the situation where if one person earns £60,000 there is no child benefit.... but if both people earn £49,999 each, they will keep all the child benefit

I don't understand why that is acceptable. It should be on total household earnings.

thats not the case its 50k per house not each

It's £50k each."

Correct - hence a couple could each earn £1 under 50k and still get full child benefit. However, a couple where only one person works and earns £60 001 will receive no child benefit

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Anyone who earns over 50k a year single or a couple and claim benefits and are moaning about loseing them are simply living above they're means and are greedy !

Could not agree more, up north you can get affordable rent just as you can in many cities in Europe but in London property prices are exhorbetant. My mums car parking space is worth over 300k and a modest four bed over 2 million. Child benefit was put in place to try to prevent child poverty and the get on your bike analogy is fine if there is work but at present many here with good degrees from top ten universities end up stacking shelves or are even deemed over qualified and hence unable to find work. What irks us is the misconceptions. It is the middle class that often take the most from the system. A close school friend of mine was personally responsible for nearly 4ks worth of debt for everyone in the country at rbs and he is now getting a 400k bonus again. It amazes me that we can be so deceived!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

" ....... My mums car parking space is worth over 300k and a modest four bed over 2 million. ........."

Which won't be reflect in the amount of Council Tax being paid.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The system is flawed and weighed heavily against people who have a stay at home parent.

If one person in a household earns, say 55,000 they will pay about £4000 a year more in tax than a household where two people earn 27,500

Add that to the £400 PA they have lost this year from the reduction in the 40% threshold and the loss of child benefit they are effectively paying £5500 per year more into the system that the two income family.

So please don't tell me I should lose my child benefit

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

A dig at immigrants? Perhaps it might be worth remembering that we in the UK are quite at liberty to go to work in other countries if the fancy takes you. Many graduates now automatically look for work around the globe. The OP was meant as advice for those who were not aware, not an opportunity to wave a nationalistic flag.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *thyorksCouple
over a year ago

ROTHERHAM

"Hubby's _iew on benefits.

Pay those who are claiming, when they could/should be at work in some capacity, N.M.W for 37.5hrs a week.

Dont give them any top-ups and let them pay their own bills/rent etc.

When and if they get into work, then the top-up of working tax credits, council tax allowance etc should come into effect. These top-ups are the 'reward' of working.

Higher earners pay plenty enough tax and NI anyways.

Oh and it should be household not individual incomes"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *UNCHBOXMan
over a year ago

folkestone

Higher earners do not always pay higher levels of income tax. If you have a clever enough accountant, you can work it so that a millionaire can actually pay less income tax than their cleaner.

Although the bar may be set quite low on this web site, 50,000 a year is not a huge salary and no one on PAYE has the ability to offset tax.

We are talking about mainly wage earners her, not the super rich.

One of the many ways you reduce your income tax is to incorperate yourself as a company, which is what some entertainers/Television presenters do. Channel your earning through a company, then pay themselves a small wage, and then pay themselves a regular dividend as the shareholders. So a clever way of avoiding the highest rate of income tax, as dividends are not taxed at the same percentage as income tax.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inktherapyCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

Not really an option for your regular man/ woman in the street working for a company though... My OH has done this when he's been a consultant and charging a daily rate, but not something you generally can do on a salaried position as an employee

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Pay it for the first 2 children only, and do not pay it for children living in Poland if one off their parents works here."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Scrap it all, if you cant afford to support yourself and your children then you shouldnt be having children.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Pay it for the first 2 children only, and do not pay it for children living in Poland if one off their parents works here.

+1. I would love a 1968 Mustang, but can't afford one, but don't expect the government to subsidise it.

Help with the first couple of kids, after that, if you want more pay for them yourselves.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I agree that high earners should be exempt from receiving it.

They are financially privelaged and don't need it.

A couple/parent who work should get it, the bone idle feckers who sit about all day should not receive it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *innamon!Woman
over a year ago

no matter

Blimey why would anyone earning that much need child benefits..

why have kids if you cant afford them...Personally think if you have kids they are your choice to keep.

If you have more than two the subsidies should stop not increase.Some people barely spend any time with their kids as it is.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"Blimey why would anyone earning that much need child benefits..

why have kids if you cant afford them...Personally think if you have kids they are your choice to keep.

If you have more than two the subsidies should stop not increase.Some people barely spend any time with their kids as it is. "

A wifey tweeted Radio 4 this am to say that losing her child benefit would mean she'd have to sack her cleaner.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think people are forgetting that the Welfare State that was created in 1947 was never meant to be a 'cradle to the grave' catch all for everyone, it was only supposed to help those in real need of it, and in some ways it became quite shameful to be 'on welfare'. Thesedays it's _iewed as a god given right to be catered for by the hard working members of society whilst doing nothing at all to earn it.

Nobody should be entitled to child maintenance and it should be given only to those who really need it. It is not something extra to fund a holiday, or pay for a cleaner, or contribute towards Sky TV.

If you earn more than £60k you don't need Child Maintenance. Similarly, we cannot have a system whereby tax is calculated on an individual basis and the fact that two people are married is ignored, yet try an insist that a married couple's joint income be considered when it comes to child maintenance. It's one or the other, you can't discriminate against a married/cohabiting couple in one instance, yet treat them as individuals when it comes to income tax.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The tax system will never be perfect and this change to child benefit is a complete shambles. Poorly thought through cheap political point scoring hitting the hard working middle class whose votes this government will rely on. The needy (and not so needy) will continue to be a drain on society through dependency on welfare, the super rich and corporates will continue to evade tax through various schemes and avoidance techniques because they can afford to employ accountants to do it and the genuine hard working tax paying people will get squeezed in every direction. Time to take a stand?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The tax system will never be perfect and this change to child benefit is a complete shambles. Poorly thought through cheap political point scoring hitting the hard working middle class whose votes this government will rely on. The needy (and not so needy) will continue to be a drain on society through dependency on welfare, the super rich and corporates will continue to evade tax through various schemes and avoidance techniques because they can afford to employ accountants to do it and the genuine hard working tax paying people will get squeezed in every direction. Time to take a stand?"

Sometimes it's not all about what will cost votes, although if it does cost the Tories votes then I'm sure that would please a lot of people on here. Child Benefit paid to people who don't need it is inherently wrong, as is the winter fuel allowance, but, as with any huge system, there will always be those for whom it will have a negative effect, and those who will abuse it too.

The reason that child benefit will still be paid to people earning £49,999 (and if they are a couple both earning that amount) is that there has to be a figure that applies to all, and if one person in a couple earning £100k between them loses his or her job then they'll only have £50k coming in and that is below the threshold. I support the changes fully even though I know full well that once my business is running at full capacity we'll be one of the families who will no longer receive child benefit. But then we won't need it and I'd much rather it went to a family that does.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Another nail in Osborne's coffin.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *r mrs pCouple
over a year ago

taunton

"Just thought this may be of some interest to some people. The forthcoming changes to Child Benefit mean that if either parent earns between £50k and £60k p.a. Child Benefit payments will be reduced on a sliding scale. Over £60k and you will not qualify for it at all. However, those on £50k-£60k will be required to complete a Tax Return in order for HMRC to calculate how much of the Child Benefit paid they will recover through tax. Those on £60k+ need to opt out or face a tax bill for all Child Benefit received in that tax year. This can be done on-line on the HMRC website. They were supposed to write out to all households affected but it seems that they are not as good at sending letters as they are at taking your money!

As a father to 3 children, now grown up, I could never understand why we received child benifit.We decided to have 3 children so why should tax payers pay to help us bring them up.Still accepted the money gratefully.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Another nail in Osborne's coffin."

Typical anti-Tory rhetoric.

I said last year that 2013 will see the beginning of the mandatory buy-back of the electorate in the run in to the next election. It always happens this way; unpopular policies in the first half term, then giveaways and buy-backs in the second half.

I think Osbourne will prove to be a very astute chancellor, and in the main, I believe he's done a very good job under very difficult circumstances. I pray that they (coalition) have left themselves enough time to see theur policies kick in in time for the electorate to feel that things are improving. The deficit is going down, aid to India is being phased out, the benefit system has been overhauled and the NHS is under the closest scrutiny it has ever been under. The road networks are going to be invested in heavily with some trunk roads sold off so that tolls can be introduced meaning that the people who use them pay for them. Houses are going to be built to ease the housing shortage which should keep property prices down for a while longer as well creating thousands of jobs.

Doesn't look so bleak when you take an objective _iew on what's actually happening, does it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So many people misunderstanding the argument about what's fair and unfair here. Regardless of where the threshold is (as that's a matter of opinion) the system is flawed.

Lets suggest for example I earned £60k a year as a single parent with 2 kids and my next door neighbours earn £99,999 combined income and also have 2 kids.. I'd lose all my child benefit and they would lose none. Fair?

And people saying "if they're going to miss it they're living beyond their means" ?? Get real. They work hard and pay tax so that they can pay for the luxuries in life such as a nice house , cars, holidays and sky tv. Doesn't mean they're wiping their arses on £10 notes.

Unlike a large percentage of this country who have never worked in their lives and think to squeeze out a couple more kids to get a bigger house etc. just saying.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So many people misunderstanding the argument about what's fair and unfair here. Regardless of where the threshold is (as that's a matter of opinion) the system is flawed.

Unlike a large percentage of this country who have never worked in their lives and think to squeeze out a couple more kids to get a bigger house etc. just saying. "

So you want them penalised for you not holding your marriage together? That's hardly fair either is it?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So a person how has one kid and works and pays tax can not get any benefits but you can have 4/5/6 kids not work never pay any tax and get all the benefits under the sun

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So many people misunderstanding the argument about what's fair and unfair here. Regardless of where the threshold is (as that's a matter of opinion) the system is flawed.

Unlike a large percentage of this country who have never worked in their lives and think to squeeze out a couple more kids to get a bigger house etc. just saying.

So you want them penalised for you not holding your marriage together? That's hardly fair either is it?"

What?? That makes no sense whatsoever!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So many people misunderstanding the argument about what's fair and unfair here. Regardless of where the threshold is (as that's a matter of opinion) the system is flawed.

Unlike a large percentage of this country who have never worked in their lives and think to squeeze out a couple more kids to get a bigger house etc. just saying.

So you want them penalised for you not holding your marriage together? That's hardly fair either is it?

What?? That makes no sense whatsoever!!!

You complained that you, as a single man earning over £60k will lose your child benefit, yet another couple earning £100k between them keep theirs. It's not their fault they've stayed together and you haven't kept your relationship going because if you had then you'd have your partner's wages coming in too. Hypothetically.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uncpl2015Couple
over a year ago

Bridgend Area

One disgruntled high earning parent was inter_iewed and stated that they were going to find it difficult losing the child benefit, because they relied on that money for the pony's livery fees.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"One disgruntled high earning parent was inter_iewed and stated that they were going to find it difficult losing the child benefit, because they relied on that money for the pony's livery fees.

My heart bleeds for them. NOT

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"One disgruntled high earning parent was inter_iewed and stated that they were going to find it difficult losing the child benefit, because they relied on that money for the pony's livery fees.

They are lying out their arse as it way more than that!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So many people misunderstanding the argument about what's fair and unfair here. Regardless of where the threshold is (as that's a matter of opinion) the system is flawed.

Unlike a large percentage of this country who have never worked in their lives and think to squeeze out a couple more kids to get a bigger house etc. just saying.

So you want them penalised for you not holding your marriage together? That's hardly fair either is it?

What?? That makes no sense whatsoever!!!

Hypothetically speaking, I'll tell that to my widowed friend who failed to keep their marriage together.

My point is that it should be calculated through household income not a single income. Regardless of where the threshold lies.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The UK is a great place to be if you're lazy, thick or irresponsible. Not so great if you study hard and work hard.

I'm in the lazy camp

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So many people misunderstanding the argument about what's fair and unfair here. Regardless of where the threshold is (as that's a matter of opinion) the system is flawed.

Unlike a large percentage of this country who have never worked in their lives and think to squeeze out a couple more kids to get a bigger house etc. just saying.

So you want them penalised for you not holding your marriage together? That's hardly fair either is it?

What?? That makes no sense whatsoever!!!

Hypothetically speaking, I'll tell that to my widowed friend who failed to keep their marriage together.

My point is that it should be calculated through household income not a single income. Regardless of where the threshold lies. "

The married couples allowance was scrapped because it was deemed that everyone should be treated as an individual, yet when it comes to child benefit you don't want them treated as individuals???

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uncpl2015Couple
over a year ago

Bridgend Area

A quick search of the internet and it seems that our child benefit is already one of the lowest in Europe and in most countries it a fixed amount and is not dependant on income....why does that not surprise me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"A quick search of the internet and it seems that our child benefit is already one of the lowest in Europe and in most countries it a fixed amount and is not dependant on income....why does that not surprise me."

Hence why most of Europe are up shit creek without a paddle. It's absurdly stupid to give the population benefits the country can't afford.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"Another nail in Osborne's coffin."

to be perfectly honest I don't think it will cause the outrage some would believe... in fact if it could be done in a fact that treats one or two people households the same, then I think actually most would support it.....

if there was a way you could do it for people eligible for winter fuel allowance I and sure most would support...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So many people misunderstanding the argument about what's fair and unfair here. Regardless of where the threshold is (as that's a matter of opinion) the system is flawed.

Unlike a large percentage of this country who have never worked in their lives and think to squeeze out a couple more kids to get a bigger house etc. just saying.

So you want them penalised for you not holding your marriage together? That's hardly fair either is it?

What?? That makes no sense whatsoever!!!

Hypothetically speaking, I'll tell that to my widowed friend who failed to keep their marriage together.

My point is that it should be calculated through household income not a single income. Regardless of where the threshold lies.

The married couples allowance was scrapped because it was deemed that everyone should be treated as an individual, yet when it comes to child benefit you don't want them treated as individuals???"

Are you making the assumption that I agreed with that also? Or is it a fact that I'm being hypercritical?

I think your missing my point and seem to want to argue about this.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uncpl2015Couple
over a year ago

Bridgend Area

I suppose the bottom line should be, if we can't afford to support your offspring without handouts from the state then we should think twice before having them.

(quickly dons bite cuffs on each arm to ward off the inevitable mauling lmao)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"Another nail in Osborne's coffin.

to be perfectly honest I don't think it will cause the outrage some would believe... ............"

.......... on the day Tom Strathclyde has deserted the sinking ship?

Cameron and Clegg were stood there like an auld couple who knew their marriage is dead.

They've tried everything. Separate holidays, separate beds, maybe even a spot of swinging but nothing has worked so in desperation they've renewed their vows in the hope nobody will see the cracks.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Hence why most of Europe are up shit creek without a paddle. It's absurdly stupid to give the population benefits the country can't afford."

So what are Germany doing that we're not?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

Hence why most of Europe are up shit creek without a paddle. It's absurdly stupid to give the population benefits the country can't afford.

So what are Germany doing that we're not?"
As I said above Rule of thumb, in Germany you get for the first and second child 184 Euro, 190 Euro for the 4th and 215 Euro for any further child per month.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"So many people misunderstanding the argument about what's fair and unfair here. Regardless of where the threshold is (as that's a matter of opinion) the system is flawed.

Unlike a large percentage of this country who have never worked in their lives and think to squeeze out a couple more kids to get a bigger house etc. just saying.

So you want them penalised for you not holding your marriage together? That's hardly fair either is it?

What?? That makes no sense whatsoever!!!

Yes but if his hypothetical wife earned £40k that would put him on a par with that other hypothetical couple, but he still wouldn't get his child benefit like they do. Not only that but his income tax would no doubt be contributing to their payments.......hypothetically.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Hence why most of Europe are up shit creek without a paddle. It's absurdly stupid to give the population benefits the country can't afford.

So what are Germany doing that we're not?As I said above Rule of thumb, in Germany you get for the first and second child 184 Euro, 190 Euro for the 4th and 215 Euro for any further child per month. "

The point I was trying to make was that Germany have a comparatively healthy economy, even though they have a Child Benefit scheme that seems to reward having children. Could it be that they place more emphasis on this than other benefits, eg unemployment?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Hence why most of Europe are up shit creek without a paddle. It's absurdly stupid to give the population benefits the country can't afford.

It isn't just about the level of benefits in other countries. It's about the level of confidence in the economy.

The two stories above (about livery and the char lady) are not typical. I suspect most families (where Child Benefit isn't paying for absolute essentials) are saving the money where they can and not putting it into the circular flow of income.

That's contributing to stifling growth.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Am I right in thinking the UK does it the other way round?

You get more for the first child and less for subsequent kids?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Hence why most of Europe are up shit creek without a paddle. It's absurdly stupid to give the population benefits the country can't afford.

So what are Germany doing that we're not?As I said above Rule of thumb, in Germany you get for the first and second child 184 Euro, 190 Euro for the 4th and 215 Euro for any further child per month.

It isn't just about the level of benefits in other countries. It's about the level of confidence in the economy.

That's contributing to stifling growth."

Let's hope that the Govt put the money generated to work in creating some growth then.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ickiemintMan
over a year ago

Somewhere NW London

"It is possible for couples can earn up to £99,999 between them and not loose any Child Benefit."

Probably a scheme designed for MPs and their families. Ooops, sorry, silly me...they'd just submit an expenses form for any top-ups that they fancy. Rich

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Demonise single women..easy targets..try not to be coerced by the right wing propaganda machine and the media..we import foreign labour because not enough children are being born to sustain an aging population...and the recession should teach us that rampant capatalism is not sustainable and there must be a new conciousness..one of benevolance and altruism..i am not a socialist by thec way..i,am a political..and have a theory that could dispense of elist control and party politics

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *olfcartweaselCouple
over a year ago

Melrose

As I'm currently on Maternity Leave I really value my CB as I'm currently bringing home SMP which isn't a lot - when you're used to a salary that's almost double it's a problem.

I couldn't breastfeed physically so he has to have formula - an expense not budgeted for for example.

I know I chose to stay home with him for those extra months but he's only a baby once - but if they took it away from me I'd miss it right now.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inktherapyCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"It is possible for couples can earn up to £99,999 between them and not loose any Child Benefit.

Probably a scheme designed for MPs and their families. Ooops, sorry, silly me...they'd just submit an expenses form for any top-ups that they fancy. Rich

Clearly you have no idea of an MPs salary - the current annual salary for an MP is £65,738. Therefore none of them would get it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

can i ask a question... are those the total amounts per month, or the amount per child?

so in effect you are getting less per child born...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uncpl2015Couple
over a year ago

Bridgend Area

"As I'm currently on Maternity Leave I really value my CB as I'm currently bringing home SMP which isn't a lot - when you're used to a salary that's almost double it's a problem.

I couldn't breastfeed physically so he has to have formula - an expense not budgeted for for example.

I know I chose to stay home with him for those extra months but he's only a baby once - but if they took it away from me I'd miss it right now."

But you have your baby expecting to be supported by the state and if the state took away your benefit where would you be. If there was no CB or SMP would you still have planned your pregnancy?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *olfcartweaselCouple
over a year ago

Melrose

I would guess total amount per month so less overall per child.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uncpl2015Couple
over a year ago

Bridgend Area

[Removed by poster at 07/01/13 22:24:34]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uncpl2015Couple
over a year ago

Bridgend Area

In Germany child benefit for the first two children, per child is €184 euro, for the third child €190 euro for each further child €215 euro so potentiall if you have 4 children that would be €773 euro per month and it's not means tested so you get that regardless of income. It is so high in Germany because of the low birth rate in an attempt to boost a shrinking population. Plus state maternity benefit is a staggering €1800.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well personally I'm not in the higher earner bracket ..(I'm a joiner ) but would like to know why just cos a person manages to earn a high wage because they wanted to make something of there lives thru hard work and study from school and uni days ...why should they not be entitled to child benefits .?? The people taxed more than the rest.. or is it the ones who have never worked a day in their lives who should reep it all in.?!! Maybe if more people on benefits of all kinds decided to get off there Fuckin arses and put a little in the system instead of moaning about how much more they CAN'T get out of it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *athfindersCouple
over a year ago

Hull

Child benefit - That is exactly what it is!!

Everyone on this post has overlooked the name. This money is a benefit to the child whether it be to feed and clothe them or have that money put aside for them in an account.

This removal of child benefit to people earning over 60k effectively penalises the child as most people who earn over 60k put this money aside in an account for the child in there name.

Granted it is not needed by the Adult but may well be needed by the child later in life.

Why should one child's 'benefit' be any different than another.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Child benefit - That is exactly what it is!!

Everyone on this post has overlooked the name. This money is a benefit to the child whether it be to feed and clothe them or have that money put aside for them in an account.

This removal of child benefit to people earning over 60k effectively penalises the child as most people who earn over 60k put this money aside in an account for the child in there name.

Granted it is not needed by the Adult but may well be needed by the child later in life. ......

Wot a load of nonsense ..yes child benefits are to benefit the child ..not a personal government piggy bank for a child that"the parents may not need it now but the child mite need it in later life " WTF ..

Why should one child's 'benefit' be any different than another.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *athfindersCouple
over a year ago

Hull

"Child benefit - That is exactly what it is!!

Everyone on this post has overlooked the name. This money is a benefit to the child whether it be to feed and clothe them or have that money put aside for them in an account.

This removal of child benefit to people earning over 60k effectively penalises the child as most people who earn over 60k put this money aside in an account for the child in there name.

Granted it is not needed by the Adult but may well be needed by the child later in life. ......

Why should one child's 'benefit' be any different than another.

Your comment makes no sense at all??? Not a personal government piggybank?? Surely you are entitled to do as you please with the money as long as it benefits the child!!!!

I would say saving that money to go to your child's education fees is a sensible way to use the benefit. This is not a personal piggy bank, this is logical and a benefit to your child.

So narrow minded!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Child benefit - That is exactly what it is!!

Everyone on this post has overlooked the name. This money is a benefit to the child whether it be to feed and clothe them or have that money put aside for them in an account.

This removal of child benefit to people earning over 60k effectively penalises the child as most people who earn over 60k put this money aside in an account for the child in there name.

Granted it is not needed by the Adult but may well be needed by the child later in life. ......

Why should one child's 'benefit' be any different than another.

Your comment makes no sense at all??? Not a personal government piggybank?? Surely you are entitled to do as you please with the money as long as it benefits the child!!!!

I would say saving that money to go to your child's education fees is a sensible way to use the benefit. This is not a personal piggy bank, this is logical and a benefit to your child.

So narrow minded!!! "

Saving for education fees is not beneficial to a child unless you mean it in the sense that an offspring is always a child regardless of age. Child benefit was supposed to help with the additional costs associated with having a baby, ie. formula/food, nappies etc. It is not for building a slush fund for later in life and parents who do use it for that should not be receiving it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

22 million Britons are on a benefit of one kind or the other. We have 1.2 million homeless. We have people here who do not seem to realize it is the housing sector causing all the problems and not benefits or welfare.

The deliberate policy of constraining social provision in housing led to the financial crisis as price reached unsustainable levels. Hence the whole thing failing. But I bet most of the posters here were delighted as those prices rose. Well our capital has depreciated by 25% since 2008 alone. Yet still the rents rise.

You hammer the poor and it jumps up and bites you on the ass every time. Might take a bit of time but it will come. I'm likely the only one here with any background in economics so have a little think and then it will sink in as to what has been going on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'm likely the only one here with any background in economics so have a little think and then it will sink in as to what has been going on."

I see modesty isn't one of your virtues.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Child benefit - That is exactly what it is!!

Everyone on this post has overlooked the name. This money is a benefit to the child whether it be to feed and clothe them or have that money put aside for them in an account.

This removal of child benefit to people earning over 60k effectively penalises the child as most people who earn over 60k put this money aside in an account for the child in there name.

Granted it is not needed by the Adult but may well be needed by the child later in life. ......

Why should one child's 'benefit' be any different than another.

Your comment makes no sense at all??? Not a personal government piggybank?? Surely you are entitled to do as you please with the money as long as it benefits the child!!!!

I would say saving that money to go to your child's education fees is a sensible way to use the benefit. This is not a personal piggy bank, this is logical and a benefit to your child.

So narrow minded!!!

baby, ie. formula/food, nappies etc. It is not for building a slush fund for later in life and parents who do use it for that should not be receiving it. "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Child benefit - That is exactly what it is!!

Everyone on this post has overlooked the name. This money is a benefit to the child whether it be to feed and clothe them or have that money put aside for them in an account.

This removal of child benefit to people earning over 60k effectively penalises the child as most people who earn over 60k put this money aside in an account for the child in there name.

Granted it is not needed by the Adult but may well be needed by the child later in life.

Why should one child's 'benefit' be any different than another.

On the other hand, someone on 60k can easily afford to set money aside out of their own pocket for the child later in life so I see your point but realistically on that type of money, they don't need nor should they be entitled to claim child benefit. The problem is that the more money someone earns the bigger and better they have to have, I don't have an issue with it but if someone chooses to buy a house where the monthly mortgage is, for example a £1,000 pm that is their choice and shouldn't be taken into consideration when working out child benefit entitlement, only the annual salary should

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uncpl2015Couple
over a year ago

Bridgend Area

"Well personally I'm not in the higher earner bracket ..(I'm a joiner ) but would like to know why just cos a person manages to earn a high wage because they wanted to make something of there lives thru hard work and study from school and uni days ...why should they not be entitled to child benefits .?? The people taxed more than the rest.. or is it the ones who have never worked a day in their lives who should reep it all in.?!! Maybe if more people on benefits of all kinds decided to get off there Fuckin arses and put a little in the system instead of moaning about how much more they CAN'T get out of it

personally we have both worked all our lives.. income is not massive we would easily still get child benefit put it that way.. but i think everyone should be able to work and support their family.

We would never have had our kids thinking thats okay benefit will help.. infact child benefit never came into any thoughts.. so if we could manage without it why should much higher earners get it..

Money needs to be saved so giving it to people who can easily afford to live and pay for their own kids is wrong.. if they stopped it altogether then maybe the number of girls that have kids just for that reason ie getting benefit and housing would stop.

Moan that the uk has no money and needs to save yet high earners been getting this and drug addicts and alcoholics get their benefit automatically and their problems are self inflicted.

if you cant afford kids dont have them.. simple really..

And we work hard always have and at times struggle but hey surely thats life..and are qualified and educated. but there we go..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 08/01/13 09:54:00]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You can't simply say, "If you don't earn enough, don't have kids," as life isn't like that at all. We all like to think that 10-20 years down the line we'll be financially better off than we are now but if we waited all those years before having children our bodies would not be able to have them. It is inherently wrong to build a society that decides to completely abandon the poorest, or the laziest, or the weakest, they have to be cared for and catered for if we are to uphold our society as a shining example of humanity. We can't be selective about it even though at times it can be infuriatingly frustrating when someone seems to take, take, take all the time, but that's part and parcel of forming an enormous collective and deciding on how that collective will be governed. With any large system of government, mistake too will also be large, and a free press amplifies that by focusing only on the mistakes and not the positives. I don't advocate shackling the press as it's important that news is delivered to the masses without govt bias, but in a lot of cases it isn't unbiased. Having a dig at single mum's draining the welfare system seems to be fair game for the press, but I'm sure many single mum's would not choose to be so and I'm positive many kids without fathers in their lives would love to know who their dad is. It's not their fault that we have a system that has changed so much over the years that we now have a system in place today that gives them enough money to make it pointless going out to work. The Welfare State was not designed ot do that but it's mandate has got lost somewhere along the way, and the work ethic that was the backbone of past generations has been superceded by a belief that all people have every right to expect the govt to foot the bill for anything they want.

Change the system by changing the way people think and the rest will slot into place.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uncpl2015Couple
over a year ago

Bridgend Area

"You can't simply say, "If you don't earn enough, don't have kids," as life isn't like that at all. We all like to think that 10-20 years down the line we'll be financially better off than we are now but if we waited all those years before having children our bodies would not be able to have them. It is inherently wrong to build a society that decides to completely abandon the poorest, or the laziest, or the weakest, they have to be cared for and catered for if we are to uphold our society as a shining example of humanity. We can't be selective about it even though at times it can be infuriatingly frustrating when someone seems to take, take, take all the time, but that's part and parcel of forming an enormous collective and deciding on how that collective will be governed. With any large system of government, mistake too will also be large, and a free press amplifies that by focusing only on the mistakes and not the positives. I don't advocate shackling the press as it's important that news is delivered to the masses without govt bias, but in a lot of cases it isn't unbiased. Having a dig at single mum's draining the welfare system seems to be fair game for the press, but I'm sure many single mum's would not choose to be so and I'm positive many kids without fathers in their lives would love to know who their dad is. It's not their fault that we have a system that has changed so much over the years that we now have a system in place today that gives them enough money to make it pointless going out to work. The Welfare State was not designed ot do that but it's mandate has got lost somewhere along the way, and the work ethic that was the backbone of past generations has been superceded by a belief that all people have every right to expect the govt to foot the bill for anything they want.

Change the system by changing the way people think and the rest will slot into place."

completey agree tbh.. it always used to be you stand on your own two feet or if you cant you sort it out and family rally around and help.. thats how it should be.. too many expect tax payers to foot the bill.

But yes if you cant afford them dont have them.. thats how it should that in itself not completely but also might help with child welfare issues.. so releive alot of stess on the system that way as well..but too many people out their helping the wrong people..basically in more ways than one ( not just benefits)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread