SUZIFACE Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 The higher earners are only getting about £20 odd quid a week, surely when you earn 44k you aint gonna miss £20. Also if you think back to those of us born in late 40's early 50's, our parents were on rations and got nothing, if you want kids, you have to pay for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUZIFACE Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 A household income of £44k isn't a lot? Wish I lived in your world! Me too, Im self employed, so no benefits, no sick pay, holiday pay, you make your bed and you lie on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 The higher earners are only getting about £20 odd quid a week, surely when you earn 44k you aint gonna miss £20. Also if you think back to those of us born in late 40's early 50's, our parents were on rations and got nothing, if you want kids, you have to pay for them You are indeed well behind the times. In many cases a child is the key to council accommodation. As for paying for your own kids, folk that opt for private education for their kids are chastised by the left on one hand, but are thought undeserved of child benefit on the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I cant believe the number of people that think the well off should get benefits-its crazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 no but then this isnt my made up and unbelievable scenario:thumbsup: My scenario was a bit extreme but there’s nothing unbelievable about it at all, the same point was being discussed by members of the Tory party this morning. A couple earning 43K each would still get the benefit while another household with a single income over 44K would lose it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff50 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Go into McDonalds in Sheffield town centre today about 11 and see the vile chav families who are currently infecting this country. Why should I pay to support their breeding habits and disgusting lifestyle ? This country has become a complete joke ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It sounds like you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It is an individual income not the household income. So to explain the anomaly as presented, for example: Husband earns £40k, wife earns £10k (total £50k) they will receive CB. Wife earns £50k, husband out of work (total £50k) they won't receive CB. Husband earns £40k, wife earns £35k (total £75k) they will receive CB. We have a system that mixes taxes on incomes, with benefits on a variety of measures, so there will always be anomalies when trying to measure the effect in comparison with income only. In addition, there are a variety of thresholds incorporated, and wherever they are it will always be possible to draw a line and shout "unfair". This is simply the system we have inherited. In your examples, the only measure you apply is income, what you ignore is time. [1]Husband works full time, and wife works part-time (total income £50k), with wife providing useful time towards care of kids. They will receive CB. [2]Wife earns £50k, husband out of work (total £50k), with husband providing significant time towards care of kids. They won't receive CB. [3]Husband earns £40k, wife earns £35k (total £75k). Parents able to provide little time towards care of kids. They will receive CB. When you take time, and other choices, as well income into comparisons it becomes almost impossible to determine which kids are the poorer, or more deserving of child benefit. With respect to child benefits, the most important consideration has always been that the system of administration is simple, which is why it was universal to all including the rich. Any system to base child benefits on the whole family income would be unworkable. I don't like the proposal, not because it's "unfair" but because it's unworkable imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamer12 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 fair play, someone earning that much shouldn't be getting benefits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 My scenario was a bit extreme but there’s nothing unbelievable about it at all, the same point was being discussed by members of the Tory party this morning. A couple earning 43K each would still get the benefit while another household with a single income over 44K would lose it. no the normal scenario when a couple split up is that one buys the other out of the house or they both move house. They dont expect child benefits to help them pay the extra mortgage payments. You weren't talking about the single parent versus couple issue-which is mental but could be rectified by an additional rule for single parents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 fair play, someone earning that much shouldn't be getting benefits So you are against the whole idea of universal benefits then, would it be OK for your granny to be means tested before she gets her winter fuel allowance for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.