wackyjaki Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 I take it from your comment that you dont receive child tax credit. It is easy to say what other people should give up. Some people would be really struggling without it. Dont forget that every penny that goes into working class pockets gets spent and helps to employ someone. Why not vent your spleen on those who rake in money just by owning things and put money into the party that will make sure things remain that way. Attack those who are really milking the rest of us. Dont initially attack your own. ive been there i didnt get taxcredit i had to bring up my kids on my hubbys wage thats how it should be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackyjaki Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 you have kids you look after them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 The logical conclusion of some of the posts on here is that only the rich should have children. Why not just sterilise the poor and be done with it?! Earning just above the 40% tax threshold could hardly be defined as 'rich'. I'd define it as middle income and as usual, it's the middle income earners who get hit the hardest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 My parents didn't get anything for me either. In fact, my parents used to tell me I'd been high maintenance since the day I was born, because the NHS was still in its infancy itself and they had to pay the midwife and doctor to deliver me, and no handout either. My younger brother on the other hand cost them nothing and they even got paid for having him! They were never in profit though I find it absurd that families didn't receive family allowance for the first child, as that is surely where the biggest outlay and expenditure is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penno Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 Good for you, but are you saying, that you needed child benefit/family allowance to send your kids to private school Choice is great but if your income is low your need for child benefit is probably much greater than if your on a good salary and making educational choices for your children ! It would have made things more difficult and the choices would have been tougher but we would still have done the same. In the words of my youngest grandson "You get what you get and you dont get upset". in other words life is not fair and the best we can aspire to is equality of opportunty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 I find it absurd that families didn't receive family allowance for the first child, as that is surely where the biggest outlay and expenditure is?I suppose that they thought that a couple would naturally want to have at least one child, and that they needed to be encouraged to have others. They needed to replenish the stock after WWII Maybe the extension to the first child was the first manifestation of the benefits culture? IIRC the child benefit was changed when they withdrew the tax allowance for children and increased the child allowance and made it payable to the mother initially, to prevent men leaving their wives with no personal money to draw on for their children. Then they immediately froze it for years so that it was effectively worth nothing. Rather in the same way that they allowed people to earn a small amount without losing benefit and then never increased that for years, making it worthless and no incentive to keep a little job going. I'm very cynical about all these ploys, quite honestly. There's always a back story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackyjaki Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 The logical conclusion of some of the posts on here is that only the rich should have children. Why not just sterilise the poor and be done with it?! Earning just above the 40% tax threshold could hardly be defined as 'rich'. I'd define it as middle income and as usual, it's the middle income earners who get hit the hardest. i think 30 grand a year would be nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_W Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 Too right 'you get what you get', life is not fair, that's why those earning a decent living should not bleat about losing child benefit ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TYPS Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 I think if you earn above £44,000 you should be able to bring-up a child without the state helping you, if you can't you're doing something wrong. says it all realy, i fully agree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penno Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 Too right 'you get what you get', life is not fair, that's why those earning a decent living should not bleat about losing child benefit ! Then please dont bleat when they attack your living standards because make no mistake they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.