Good note by the IFS, confirming much of what Southend says. Another point is that the CB is still paid but has to be repaid as tax by the high earner.
I'll lose out on this but don't think I should get it anyway. I'd really rather they abolished it totally and used the money to provide subsidised/free child care for working parents.
Are there really so many people on Council estates with loads of kids? I doubt it. Daily Mail exposes don't make good public policy." quote....
Are there any council estates. these days at least around here........ I thought they were all housing associations these days........
or imigration (o yes of course he did say they got it wrong ----------mind you all the Guardianistas on here said they had it right !!)
or the tube strike ( cant slag off Comrade Crow after all the Unions pay his wages)
yes pleaseeeeeeeeeeee lets hear him twaddle on about how this time Labour and the Guardianistas will get it righ i mean 13 years wasnt enoug was it ?
Just what would be cut under Labour ? i dont remember them saying to much pre the election ------i wonder why ? not one policy on how to reduce the huge mess we are in . Who was in power then ?
Still could be worse they could have elected Dianne Abbott (although that would have made them truly unelectable outside of 'ackney so i suppose its a shame they didnt)
[quote][cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Cue greedy mumsnet whingers moaning about how they cant possibly make ends meet on 45 grand a year Oh please...
Why the change from last years policy? Could it be the discovery of the economic black hole that the previous government had neglected to tell us about? Requiring unpopular cuts from the start of the new administration[/quote]
OH please, if you put in you should get back, tho I do think the way forward is to limit the payments to 2 kids, if you cant afford kids DONT HAVE THEM SIMPLE !!!.
From memory , if you give money away and dont benifit from it thats called charity, this house hold already gives enough to charity thanks, we are not prepared to give away more to dole wallers and kiddy factories, see Mr Kyle , 9.30 am ITV
[quote][cite]Posted By: Jints[/cite] I'd really rather they abolished it totally and used the money to provide subsidised/free child care for working parents.
Are there really so many people on Council estates with loads of kids? I doubt it. Daily Mail exposes don't make good public policy.[/quote]
Totally agree on your first point, second point, yes
[quote][cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Diane "im not a racist but west indian mothers care more" Abbot. Yep a true socialist is Diane.
yes sorry RCT and AFKA to be honest there are some good Labour MPs--- the dead ones.[/quote]
Labour dont work , what normal' man on the street earns 60K+ has an expenses account & has a flat in westminster ? I've always wondered how the ship builders and miners didnt twig onto this ?? Anyone know if dear old Arthur still lives in his 600K abode ?
Well off people should not recieve Child Benifit. However one income of circa £44k in a family of 4 is NOT well off.
Why not say if your joint income exceedes £75k then you lose it.
Agreed RedZed, I don't think universal benefits are right, though I will also lose out, but I also don't think it right that those in a particular pay bracket should take the hit for everyone. I would stop child benefit completely, think of the savings on staff, though a few thousand jobs in Washington Tyne and Wear would be lost, I think that is why they have not canned it yet. Surely these people could have been redeployed to tackle benefit fraud and tax evasion and would have paid their way.
If as we are told we will soon have a universal benefit in the future anyway then it makes no sense keeping this for anyone in the future. I think this will happen, just wish they had balanced this announcement out with an actual cut in benefits now, rather than some vague idea of a future upper benefits limit. Child benefit is deducted from income support anyway, so chavs don't benefit from it. Think they could have been braver rather than singling out a middle income group to show people nothing is sacred.
You know that bit in my original thread where I said I dont want to turn this into a political argument :)
I didnt have two kids because I wanted the benefit money but there are definite faults with this move by the coalition.
Would be interested in knowing what cutting child benefit for just 50% tax people would have saved, may have been an awful lot and I'm not sure Wayne and Colleen would have noticed but as people have said - middle income people like myself have been stung.
And to think my missus went back to work 3 days a week just because she wanted to work - her salary roughly £1000 after tax - our childcare costs £800!!!
Tories can't win this argument, but, as pointed out earlier in the thread, they don't need to. As someone who's never had kids and never intends to, I've always seen child benefit, personally speaking, as a bit of a f***ing cheek. Its not as if we NEED more people in this country anyway - why encourage people to breed?
However, I understand and accept the need to protect the neediest members of society, so accept that any form of benefits system needs to balance the overall needs of those requiring benefit with those that require it more than others (e.g. People with extra mouths to feed).
All that implementing the policy change in this way will do is muller the 'traditional' family (if such a thing exists any more) - hammering the stay at home mums who will now be FORCED into part time work just to cover the costs of the childminder. Whatever Osborne says about it not being feasible to means-test people and base it on total household income is utter bollocks. It makes zero sense and, instead of changing a benefit for good, makes it even less fair than it currently is.
If anyone wants a non-political look at government borrowing and debt, this article is quite enlightening. Not much point in engaging in the cartoon politics some on here prefer but as a matter of fact the country was £350bn in debt when the Tories left office in 1997 and the figure was lower between 1998 to 2004.
I can appreciate the principle of trying to reduce the benefit spend on the higher earners but this way of implementing it seems to me simply a shortcut. I suspect that they costs a means tested way of reducing child benefit and realised it would cost more to implement than it would save. Doing it this way is a lot simpler to set up and therefore the savings can be realised.
This takes no account of the considerable differences in cost of living in the UK. Someone on 45k up north can live like a king, round here you'd struggle to get a mortgage!
[cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]Well off people should not recieve Child Benifit. However one income of circa £44k in a family of 4 is NOT well off.
Why not say if your joint income exceedes £75k then you lose it.
This is what I cant get my head around. So a couple can be earning 83k a year between them and still receive it but with one parent working earning 44k they lose it?
This to me seems really unfair and as Saga points out someone earning 44k and living in London would not be well off.
Having said the above this is just what we are used to and really should anyone rely on payments from the government to help raise your children? But if the government is going to do it - then at least make it fairer.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]If anyone wants a non-political look at government borrowing and debt, this article is quite enlightening. Not much point in engaging in the cartoon politics some on here prefer but as a matter of fact the country was £350bn in debt when the Tories left office in 1997 and the figure was lower between 1998 to 2004.
I'd rather pay to help the poor than prop up the banks.
Leroy - of course we need more people in this country. Who do you think will be paying taxes in 50 years time? Our children. Mothers get child benefit because thay are doing the most important job in the world. Even more important than trading derivatives.
Speaking of which, my girlfriend is expecting another little Charlton supporter this month. It feels almost cruel to dump a lifetime of disappointment on the little thing but what can you do..?
[cite]Posted By: Vincenzo[/cite]I'd rather pay to help the poor than prop up the banks.
It's amazing how the banking industry has pulled this off. With the collusion of both Labour and Conservative/Liberal and much of the press, they have been exonerated of causing the deficit. It was all apparently caused by the public sector and those receiving benefits . I'm not against reform, but it's a bit rich (no pun intended) that the slate has been wiped clean for the banks - if we hadn't bailed them out, we would not need to make such savage cuts.
This government and the previous one were/are happy to subsidise rich bankers with OUR tax money. And what do we get in return?
All that implementing the policy change in this way will do is muller the 'traditional' family (if such a thing exists any more) - hammering the stay at home mums who will now be FORCED into part time work just to cover the costs of the childminder.
Why would stay at home Mums need to pay a child minder?
what would seem sensible to me is doing it by total household income ie household income above 70k and you don't get it, below and you do. Irrespective of whether that is one income or two incomes. Also, should someone over 18 and earning be brought into the income equation? If earning they should be contributing to household expenditure and so their income taken into account also. Plus Child Bnefit should be restricted to TWO children. You want more then YOU pay for them.
[cite]Posted By: Vincenzo[/cite]I'd rather pay to help the poor than prop up the banks.
This government and the previous one were/are happy to subsidise rich bankers withOURtax money. And what do we get in return?
yes, all us Bankers are stinking rich and live in a big pile in Surrey with a moat, a Roller and an indoor pool. Jeez. Rich bankers, I wish. Like saying all footballers earn 200k pw week becuase Toure does. Try telling that to say Grant Basey.
[cite]Posted By: Vincenzo[/cite]I'd rather pay to help the poor than prop up the banks.
This government and the previous one were/are happy to subsidise rich bankers withOURtax money. And what do we get in return?
yes, all us Bankers are stinking rich and live in a big pile in Surrey with a moat, a Roller and an indoor pool. Jeez. Rich bankers, I wish. Like saying all footballers earn 200k pw week becuase Toure does. Try telling that to say Grant Basey.
Not suggesting that all bankers are rich. I know people that got laid off because of the banking crisis. But those at the top were already rich and have managed to stay rich, in spite of dragging the economy down by gambling with everyone else's money. The world has been turned upside down - the rest of us are subsidising their way of life and they haven't been asked to pay back the bail-out subsidy we gave them.
Comments
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5297
Are there really so many people on Council estates with loads of kids? I doubt it. Daily Mail exposes don't make good public policy." quote....
Are there any council estates. these days at least around here........ I thought they were all housing associations these days........
pissing millions up the wall for 13 years
or imigration (o yes of course he did say they got it wrong ----------mind you all the Guardianistas on here said they had it right !!)
or the tube strike ( cant slag off Comrade Crow after all the Unions pay his wages)
yes pleaseeeeeeeeeeee lets hear him twaddle on about how this time Labour and the Guardianistas will get it righ i mean 13 years wasnt enoug was it ?
Just what would be cut under Labour ? i dont remember them saying to much pre the election ------i wonder why ? not one policy on how to reduce the huge mess we are in . Who was in power then ?
Red flag ???????? should be f**kin red flames.
Still could be worse they could have elected Dianne Abbott (although that would have made them truly unelectable outside of 'ackney so i suppose its a shame they didnt)
yes sorry RCT and AFKA to be honest there are some good Labour MPs--- the dead ones.
Oh please...
Why the change from last years policy? Could it be the discovery of the economic black hole that the previous government had neglected to tell us about?
Requiring unpopular cuts from the start of the new administration[/quote]
OH please, if you put in you should get back, tho I do think the way forward is to limit the payments to 2 kids, if you cant afford kids DONT HAVE THEM SIMPLE !!!.
From memory , if you give money away and dont benifit from it thats called charity, this house hold already gives enough to charity thanks, we are not prepared to give away more to dole wallers and kiddy factories, see Mr Kyle , 9.30 am ITV
Are there really so many people on Council estates with loads of kids? I doubt it. Daily Mail exposes don't make good public policy.[/quote]
Totally agree on your first point,
second point, yes
yes sorry RCT and AFKA to be honest there are some good Labour MPs--- the dead ones.[/quote]
Labour dont work , what normal' man on the street earns 60K+ has an expenses account & has a flat in westminster ? I've always wondered how the ship builders and miners didnt twig onto this ?? Anyone know if dear old Arthur still lives in his 600K abode ?
Diane Abbott is a true socialist.
She has lived the socialist mantra of don't do what I do, do what I say. The education of her child being a good example.
Why not say if your joint income exceedes £75k then you lose it.
You're right. They inheritd the best economy this country had ever seen.
And what a complete mess they made of it!
Rich people get walloped and the rich people moan...
What a miserable bunch of bastards we English are...
Perhaps we should do what they do in China and have cows instead of kids, think of all the free milk...
If as we are told we will soon have a universal benefit in the future anyway then it makes no sense keeping this for anyone in the future. I think this will happen, just wish they had balanced this announcement out with an actual cut in benefits now, rather than some vague idea of a future upper benefits limit. Child benefit is deducted from income support anyway, so chavs don't benefit from it. Think they could have been braver rather than singling out a middle income group to show people nothing is sacred.
You know that bit in my original thread where I said I dont want to turn this into a political argument :)
I didnt have two kids because I wanted the benefit money but there are definite faults with this move by the coalition.
Would be interested in knowing what cutting child benefit for just 50% tax people would have saved, may have been an awful lot and I'm not sure Wayne and Colleen would have noticed but as people have said - middle income people like myself have been stung.
And to think my missus went back to work 3 days a week just because she wanted to work - her salary roughly £1000 after tax - our childcare costs £800!!!
However, I understand and accept the need to protect the neediest members of society, so accept that any form of benefits system needs to balance the overall needs of those requiring benefit with those that require it more than others (e.g. People with extra mouths to feed).
All that implementing the policy change in this way will do is muller the 'traditional' family (if such a thing exists any more) - hammering the stay at home mums who will now be FORCED into part time work just to cover the costs of the childminder. Whatever Osborne says about it not being feasible to means-test people and base it on total household income is utter bollocks. It makes zero sense and, instead of changing a benefit for good, makes it even less fair than it currently is.
The myth of record debt
This is what I cant get my head around. So a couple can be earning 83k a year between them and still receive it but with one parent working earning 44k they lose it?
This to me seems really unfair and as Saga points out someone earning 44k and living in London would not be well off.
Having said the above this is just what we are used to and really should anyone rely on payments from the government to help raise your children? But if the government is going to do it - then at least make it fairer.
Interesting Airman.
Will be revealing to review this again in 18 months with some updated figures.
Leroy - of course we need more people in this country. Who do you think will be paying taxes in 50 years time? Our children. Mothers get child benefit because thay are doing the most important job in the world. Even more important than trading derivatives.
Speaking of which, my girlfriend is expecting another little Charlton supporter this month. It feels almost cruel to dump a lifetime of disappointment on the little thing but what can you do..?
It's amazing how the banking industry has pulled this off. With the collusion of both Labour and Conservative/Liberal and much of the press, they have been exonerated of causing the deficit. It was all apparently caused by the public sector and those receiving benefits . I'm not against reform, but it's a bit rich (no pun intended) that the slate has been wiped clean for the banks - if we hadn't bailed them out, we would not need to make such savage cuts.
This government and the previous one were/are happy to subsidise rich bankers with OUR tax money. And what do we get in return?
Why would stay at home Mums need to pay a child minder?
yes, all us Bankers are stinking rich and live in a big pile in Surrey with a moat, a Roller and an indoor pool. Jeez. Rich bankers, I wish. Like saying all footballers earn 200k pw week becuase Toure does. Try telling that to say Grant Basey.
Not suggesting that all bankers are rich. I know people that got laid off because of the banking crisis. But those at the top were already rich and have managed to stay rich, in spite of dragging the economy down by gambling with everyone else's money. The world has been turned upside down - the rest of us are subsidising their way of life and they haven't been asked to pay back the bail-out subsidy we gave them.