The hill I would die on.

Radostanradical said:

Stig said:

Radostanradical said:

soapboxsam said:

The Hill I would die on: 
If you can have more than two children, you pay for them and don't expect the state to pay for your 3rd, 4th, or 5th in Child allowance; Just one of the many U-turns we have seen in the last 2 years.
You think some people have never heard of birth control or the morning after pill. 

The allowance should goes up for the first two Children as we need folk to have children to pass the baton of life on to before we are culled at 80 !!!

My wife knew my soapbox views and after 2 healthy kids she suddenly wanted more but I was Adam Ant that the financial costs would make me work even longer hours than I was already working.
I retired early and can live in luxury for the rest of my life as long as I die before the August bank holiday this year 🙄

Tbf the whole thing is bizarre and unfair from the start.

I no longer live in the UK but when we has our first child, I was in the UK and earning below the threshold to receive child allowance. After around 9 months, I came to the same conclusion as you re financial costs and luckily I was working in a relatively niche field in technology for the public sector, whuch enabled me to move quite quickly to a higher paying jobin provate sector and was in a weird position where I was entitped to some but not all the allowance. Then the next year got a pay rise that took me completely above the allowance limit. The whole time my partner had informed them of our finances and they kept paying us.

Fortunately we knew we shouldnt really be getting it so it just went in to an account and wasnt touched. Whilst we waited for the day they came back for there money. Lo and behold said day came after 3 years. No problem I thought incorrectly as assumed they know how much they paid me and hiw much I am paid they will just tell me figure and id pay them. Nope I had to retrospectively do three self assessments for them to tell me how much I owed. Eventually got it sorted but it was a huge  buoecracy, they then tried to make me pay late fees for my SA's (which i wasnt aware I had to do) they eventually accepted it would be unfiar and waived them.

However the system for this is hugely unfair as it and for free child care hours too. Essentially people like myself and others (who pay more tax than others) are disqualified from perks we literally paid more towards (and in the case of childcare hours it literally negatively impacts the economy), also a couple where both earn 99k will get full free childcare hours even though household income 198k, where as a family where one parent works but earns 101k get zero hours. In the rest of Europe its just accepted you pay tax you get these benefits.

The only reason they dont give everyone these perks is the UK always wants to appear to be punishing people for success, IMO. They feel there is always an undercurrent of unfairness if someone has done well.

Such a shame, you were doing really well in describing some of the inequities of the welfare system and then you reached your conclusion and started sounding like a tin-hatted nutter. 

Well please explain why they would pick to exclude people earning over a certain amount when doing so is clearly detrimental to the economy for anyone who can use an iota of grey matter.

To clarify I dont think ots a secret cabal of rich people that want to keep peeople down, I believe politicians are worried how it would look if they allowed people whom most would consider rich (I disagree with that tag personally) to have access to benefits.