craigmason Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 I don't know why they just means test them all and say if your have under a certain level of £££'s you get benefits if you are over the limit you get no money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I wonder how many mothers use their child benefits to get bladdered in Embrace at the weekend?Do you mean 'parents'? Or do you already know how many fathers do? This is rather a non-sequitur, because the no-hopers will still get their child benefits. It's going to be the most productive and hard working parents who'll lose out. The coalition is going to have to rethink this before 2013 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 The coalition is going to have to rethink this before 2013 ... I think it's going to be the turn of the disabled then Ruby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penno Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Looks like the same old Tories to me. Divide and rule. Slash and burn. Then when working people are really on there uppers they will accept anything to survive. Judging by the arguments on the board the divide and rule bit is working' The worrying thing about their strategy is that it attcks the most important part of the economic chain i.e.the consumer which will put the economy into a downward spiral at which point those who are arguing the tory case will become less voluble or find ways of blaming Labour for it. The Tories have divided working class people before and they will do it again. Look at the schism that still exists between the yorks and notts miners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PC Brigade Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I don't understand why, if it's essential we do this, they arn't doing it until 3 years from now ? Because its not essential - its an attempt to wrong foot Labour, by making the first 'cut' one that affects high rate earners, so that when they start cutting for the rest of us they can point to this and say 'We target the rich too'. However it looks to have backfired already due to the insane way it is being worked out. Families where only 1 parent earns over 44k will lose the benefit, those where both earn 40k each will keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 "Child benefit row: David Cameron holds out promise of tax credits for couples. Married couples could get new tax breaks to compensate for losing child benefit, David Cameron has suggested. The proposal is part of a a bid by the Prime Minister and George Osborne to quel anger over the abolition of the universal payment to parents." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8043087/Child-benefit-row-David-Cameron-holds-out-promise-of-tax-credits-for-couples.html Osborne's fiscal juggling is turning into a similar shambles to Gordon Brown's abolition of the 10% tax rate. Dread to think what hair-brained schemes he has lined up for the spending review but he's beginning to look like a rank amateur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 What really annoys me about this is that I'm single. I earn between 16 and 17 grand a year. I don't get tax credits, I have no children so I don't get family credits and I don't get housing benefit. Yet all I've heard all day is people earning 3 times what I do complaining about how hard it is for them to budget. If you can't budget 44,000 then what the hell are you doing earning it and if you need benefits to afford kids should you really be having them? I can't afford a car, guess what, I don't have one. I'm sick of people constantly going on about what they deserve. Fact is none of us deserve an easy ride. Personally though I do think that child benefit should also only be paid out on the first two kids. This would encourage a like for like replacement on humans. The planet's already got enough of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Because its not essential - its an attempt to wrong foot Labour, by making the first 'cut' one that affects high rate earners, so that when they start cutting for the rest of us they can point to this and say 'We target the rich too'. It was quite funny yesterday listening to Yvette Cooper (Labour) telling us how awful it was that people with a £44k salary had lots of outgoings and this cut would be simply horrid for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Do you mean 'parents'? Or do you already know how many fathers do? This is rather a non-sequitur, because the no-hopers will still get their child benefits. It's going to be the most productive and hard working parents who'll lose out. The coalition is going to have to rethink this before 2013 ... Indeed, this is an attack on women which will further increase gender inequality. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/child-benefit-state-cuts It is also plain stupid unfair. This means that all households in which at least one person earns £44,000 or more will lose out, although a family with two adults earning, say, £40,000 a year will not. It's a big political gamble for the Tories and it amounts to an average tax increase of nearly £2,000 a year (£1,000 for the first child and £700 for each subsequent child) for the families affected. So much for those Tory election promises.... Philip Hammond, then shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, told Newsnight on 27 April: We have made a decision to rule out means testing child benefit because it is a universal benefit. Talking to people, one of the things they appreciate about child benefit that it is universal and easily understood. To start to means test it would erode it ... It reassures them about the availability of the benefit. If you start means testing it, if you start slicing away at that universality, then people are going to ask where you are going to stop. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/child-benefit-universal-tories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 What really annoys me about this is that I'm single. I earn between 16 and 17 grand a year. I don't get tax credits, I have no children so I don't get family credits and I don't get housing benefit. Yet all I've heard all day is people earning 3 times what I do complaining about how hard it is for them to budget. If you can't budget 44,000 then what the hell are you doing earning it and if you need benefits to afford kids should you really be having them? I can't afford a car, guess what, I don't have one. I'm sick of people constantly going on about what they deserve. Fact is none of us deserve an easy ride. Personally though I do think that child benefit should also only be paid out on the first two kids. This would encourage a like for like replacement on humans. The planet's already got enough of us. good post a lot of sense:thumbsup: anyone one that earns 44k a year is well off and does not need another £20 quid a week and if they do they are living way beyond their means, i think another step should be to limit it to any household with a combined income of 50k or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.