Tories scrapping child benefit for people who earn over £44,000

[claraa]

I don't go out and buy an expensive car and expect the taxpayer to part fund it for me. Same should apply to babies.

 

I bet the taxpayer pays your wages though.

 

And without babies you would probably not have a job.

[truman]

I can't think of a reason for not paying 100% of the benefit in your example there.

 

One thing..the cost...?

[Grandad.Malky]

rich pensioners shouldnt get benefits either. Benefits should be for the people in dire need, not for people who can afford everything they need and more.

 

So to take your stance one step further how much should “rich” people pay to visit a doctor or an A&E department, how much should “rich” people pay to use libraries or other public buildings, how much should “rich” people pay to send their kids to a state school?

 

These are all “universal benefits” we all take for granted but in you view “rich” people should pay for them, as it occurred to you that “rich” people pay more Tax to contribute towards these benefits .

 

 

Benefits should be for the people in dire need

 

Like to many political comments your sound bites are threadbare, next you will be quoting how many children live in poverty.

 

 

Are people with a car in dire need?

 

Are people that take a holidays in dire need?

 

Are people that kit their kids out with mobile phones and nike trainers in dire need?

[truman]

Could someone define "rich" or does it just mean someone who earns more than you?

[Grandad.Malky]

Could someone define "rich" or does it just mean someone who earns more than you?

 

You've got it.

[milquetoast1]

One thing..the cost...?

 

I basically agree with the sentiment that if you cannot afford to bring children into the world, either financially or capably, then you shouldn't.

 

All I am doing is making a suggestion in answer to the critics that say it is unfair that one income of £45k loses the benefit, whilst two incomes of £43k keep it.

 

However, if an announcement was made that child benefit was to be removed for more than 2 kids in 10 years time, I think it would be a brave and correct decision.

 

(Incidentally, my wife and I came home in a taxi the other night, and I got talking to the driver about kids. He was no more than late 20's and he boasted about having 6 kids. When I remarked jokingly about him being mad he replied, "oh that's nothing, my brother's got 10. I'll have more than that. I love big families me." As we walked back into our house, my wife even commented on being uncomfortable with the way he bragged about his fertility. I don't see why the state should reward his choice.)

[penno]

The Tories have presented an easy target for the working classes to aim at by taking away the child benefit from high earners. They havnt said why they wouldnt set capital gains tax to the same level as income tax as recommended by Vince Cable nor have they done anything about making non doms pay tax.

[llamatron]

So to take your stance one step further how much should “rich” people pay to visit a doctor or an A&E department, how much should “rich” people pay to use libraries or other public buildings, how much should “rich” people pay to send their kids to a state school?

 

These are all “universal benefits” we all take for granted but in you view “rich” people should pay for them, as it occurred to you that “rich” people pay more Tax to contribute towards these benefits .

 

 

 

 

Like to many political comments your sound bites are threadbare, next you will be quoting how many children live in poverty.

 

 

Are people with a car in dire need?

 

Are people that take a holidays in dire need?

 

Are people that kit their kids out with mobile phones and nike trainers in dire need?

 

rich people have paid for the hospital already we are talking about giving away money not schools and hospitals

[Grandad.Malky]

rich people have paid for the hospital already we are talking about giving away money not schools and hospitals

 

Benefits aren’t just monetary.

 

We all pay our dues and it goes into a “pot” of money which the government uses as it sees fit …………… isn’t that the idea of “universal benefits”, I cant remember the last time I used a library or a museum or an A&E (touch wood) but I don’t run around saying “its not fair rich people are getting something I am paying for.

[L00b]

Could someone define "rich" or does it just mean someone who earns more than you?

To echo Malky: precisely.

 

The point raised by Malky in post 294 is prescient: if you make the 'rich' pay for the universal benefits twice (once through taxation/cuts (same-o) and a second time upon consumption of services), on the simple populist basis that 'they can afford it', don't be surprised when they eventually tell you to shove it sideways en masse and up sticks, and you then lose out the entire revenue.

 

Particularly so when the point of individual diminishing returns is reached (additional tax/levy/etc. on higher earnings of Mr X making the "higher" portion of the earnings not worth having, relative to lesser earnings of Mr Y with less reponsibility/stress/accountability and possibly -probably- a better quality of life...or still worth having, but elsewhere )