truman Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 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 Unless the children's father had died I'd be asking where is he in all this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 I can't believe people are grumbling. The average wage in Sheffield is around the £20k mark (and the median even lower). Not many earn £44k between them. Every single MP will lose child benefit. The rest of the cuts will probably fall on the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul2412 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 So in your opinion someone who works 50 hours a week on minimum wage because they can't get a better job "can't be arsed"? Nope. I'm not sure where I mentioned any particular group but now you brought it up it's the parasites who have kids from 4 different men / women who "demand" money so they can survive that I was talking about. Anyone who works hard and pays into the system should get the rewards that is provided. People who don't, shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 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 But in this case, we're not talking about spendthrifts on incomes above £100k. We're talking about people on a medium scale income of £45k. I think £75-100k would have been the level to start, as I stated earlier. The couple you're talking about are exceptional, most parents would have been putting it into the Uni fund, if they didn't need it for everyday support for their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul2412 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 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 Good point. We need population control and we desperately need an end to all the good for precisely nothing <REMOVED> that seem to be walking around most estates. Only providing assistance to 2 kids and no more is a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China-Black Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Don’t be fooled its just a taster of what’s to come, start of with cuts that few can complain about but those feeling smug at the moment will soon be effected. Too true, they will keep lowering it bit by bit over the coming years, after all the people voted for them and I was not one of them........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China-Black Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 If it is the household income, £44k isn't a lot. £60k would be fairer for a household income imo. 44k isnt a lot? What planet are you living up. Grow up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 44k isnt a lot? What planet are you living on? Grow up!I didn't agree the first time you said it! Saying it twice doesn't influence me .... £45k is pretty much a middle income for keeping two adults and two children. Especially as it's the level that the higher tax band kicks in. You pay twice as much tax and get half the benefits? How is that fair? We've already had one thread complaining that no-one can afford to buy a house, according to them. And yet, £45k is a fortune now! Make your minds up, can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China-Black Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 I posted again because of mistyped error. It doesnt wash with me at all when someone says 44k isnt a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 44k isnt a lot? What planet are you living on? Grow up! Its all comparative isn’t it, 40K isn’t a lot if you have the overheads to match it, now if you lived in a council house and earned 40K that may be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.