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

[convert]

While they are feeling generous perhaps they make a donation towards keeping Wednesday out of the courts.

 

Was chatting with a chap at the weekend, who said that should he win the lottery he'd buy Wednesday.

 

 

 

 

I told him that I hoped the three numbers he needed, came up.

 

 

PS back on topic I think that it's a great idea to reduce benefits given to those on larger incomes; and I'm someone who would lose child benefit with these measures.

[Babooshka]

Blimey! What I could do for my child if I earned £44k. Wishful thinking. Not sure how anyone can think that it costs this amount to raise a child, and so require extra benefits. I raise mine on a fraction of this. Maybe those who find raising a multiple-children family expensive should think twice about having multiple children, if they are concerned about the cost.

[milquetoast1]

Blimey! What I could do for my child if I earned £44k. Wishful thinking. Not sure how anyone can think that it costs this amount to raise a child, and so require extra benefits. I raise mine on a fraction of this. Maybe those who find raising a multiple-children family should think twice about having multiple children, if they are concerned about the cost.

You clearly have no idea how much it costs to send our kids to Birkdale. Quite honestly, it only because of the child benefit that we are able to put petrol in the Mercedes these days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grandad.Malky]

Blimey! What I could do for my child if I earned £44k. Wishful thinking. .

 

Not really because people cut their cloth to fit, someone on 40 grand may have no more disposable income than someone on half that amount.

[Sausage Dog]

Don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but isn't there a perverse disincentive stopping people getting a promotion in Osbourne's plan?

 

Say you earn £43,999, and have two kids. This means you get around £1,800 tax free Child Benefit a year on top of your wages. Once you go over £44,000 you lose the benefit and go into the higher tax bracket. This means that you are going to have to have a promotion that pays around £3,000 just to be back where you started (maths ain't my strong point, so no doubt someone clever than me will come in with the exact amount. And the thing is, this disincentive becomes even greater if you have more kids.

 

Not saying that richer people should still get the benefit, but Osbourne's plan looks like a back of an envelop job.

[Paul2412]

I'd like to know how many entrepreneurs or people with specialised skills have turned their back on this country over recent years.

 

It appears that if you do well for yourself and work hard you get penalised, penalised in order to pay for the people who can't be arsed.

[convert]

I'd like to know how many entrepreneurs or people with specialised skills have turned their back on this country over recent years.

 

It appears that if you do well for yourself and work hard you get penalised, penalised in order to pay for the people who can't be arsed.

 

I can see where you're coming from here.

 

However, as some one on a higher salary I don't mind losing out on the child benefits, providing the savings are used to benefit the whole nation; not just some family of 'breeders'.

 

We should go further and limit the number of children that a family can claim benefit for to 2. We need to discourage breeding for the sake of extra benefits.

 

If one (as in you and not the nanny state) can't afford to raise one's own children then, perhaps the state should intervene in a slightly more draconian way. I hear that housebricks are quite cheap at B&Q

[Grandad.Malky]

It appears that if you do well for yourself and work hard you get penalised, penalised in order to pay for the people who can't be arsed.

 

There was a time when those that cant be “arsed” were frowned on but unfortunately playing the system as now became a way of live for far too many.

[hitch_1980]

I can see where you're coming from here.

 

However, as some one on a higher salary I don't mind losing out on the child benefits, providing the savings are used to benefit the whole nation; not just some family of 'breeders'.

 

We should go further and limit the number of children that a family can claim benefit for to 2. We need to discourage breeding for the sake of extra benefits.

 

If one (as in you and not the nanny state) can't afford to raise one's own children then, perhaps the state should intervene in a slightly more draconian way. I hear that housebricks are quite cheap at B&Q

 

Thats something im thinking alot of people would agree with.

[staninoodle]

I used to know a couple,one a bank manager,the other a part time lecturer,thier total income was above 100K.

they used thier child benefit on things like a nice painting,or piece of named pottery,the occasional weekend at a spa.....contast that with a single mum on benefit who depends on it for child related expenses such as shoes,clothes,food,school trips,presents for birthdays and x-mas and you begin to think somethings not quite fair by those comparisons