Although I dont begrudge the removal of this benefit for people on 40% tax (although works out £1000 a year, boo) can someone explain the reasoning behind only making it per person and not per household.
If me and the missus both earnt £40k a year we could still collect it but as she earns nothing and I dont earn £80k a year we get stung.
If you earn £43k a year and have 3 kids you are gonna be a lot better off than earning £45k a year.
Dont want to turn this into a political argument as I agree with it in principle, especially anyone who is paying 50% tax but that part confuses me.
Apologies if any of the above is rubbish.
0
Comments
The tax shoul dbe on the council estate scum that have 3/4/5/6 kids and CANT afford them !
I wont even begin to go on about bloody child care at £50 a day for us that WORK !!!!
I don't get why anyone other than the very poorly paid should get this personally, its basically playing politics with the cuts - why not do away with it altogether and add a portion of that saving to family based income support means testing
Agree with you Southend,first thing I thought. Household should be defined as a couple living together as husband and wife regardless of gender and they need to be subject to some mystical ceremony
These two quotes sum it all up for me. Just because my wife earns a reasonable wage we now lose out on this. We pay over £850 throughtout the course of a month for childcare just so we can both afford to go to work and try to cover our £1200 mortgage. Factor in the £600 or £700 a month we spend on getting to work.
Now you can see why this small amount of money is actually rather important to us!
Now compare to scum who churn out kids - they pay next to nothing in rent, don't bother with work so don't have to pay anything out for that and get paid to breed!
something tells me that this isn't quite a fair system
If you decide to have more than two children you agree to take financial responsibility for them.
I agree with Harvey's last point.
The tax shoul dbe on the council estate scum that have 3/4/5/6 kids and CANT afford them !
I wont even begin to go on about bloody child care at £50 a day for us that WORK !!!![/quote]
These two quotes sum it all up for me. Just because my wife earns a reasonable wage we now lose out on this. We pay over £850 throughtout the course of a month for childcare just so we can both afford to go to work and try to cover our £1200 mortgage. Factor in the £600 or £700 a month we spend on getting to work.
Now you can see why this small amount of money is actually rather important to us!
Now compare to scum who churn out kids - they pay next to nothing in rent, don't bother with work so don't have to pay anything out for that and get paid to breed!
something tells me that this isn't quite a fair system"..........quote
I thought this so called benefit reform, or budget defeceit review was supposed to reward those that worked!
Do not get it myself, but in my kid rearing days you had 6 weeks off ( with twins) and that was your lot. I did not even get the day off work, so the right for everyone to get a benefit has got out of control, and any political party needed to reform this.
Quite how you compensate someone in the South of the country and the North through pay differentials I have no idea.
I would draw the line at North Woolwich myself, Passport to Popular anyone!.........
ps. Have to visit a friend on a council estate tonight...will be wary of the scum LOL.
Presumably the reason is that it would cost too much in terms of administration to make it fair, but I don't think that will wash with the people affected.
That's the jist of it except it is for people who earn the equivalent of £37,501 in today's money as I understand it...think they have factored in inflation hence the £45k figure.
Shocking policy.
I can also see the Lib-Dems having trouble selling this to their rank'n'file members, I wonder if this was included in the coalition negotiations?
I predict a riot.
Hope you have locking wheel nuts!!!!! :-)
But to be fair there are plenty of childless couples who would back them based on not having so much of their money supporting families.
As for the people who have to consider getting a pay rise, that happens when you progress, you balance the pay rise against the higher rate of tax you will pay.
I can't believe people are complaining so much about not getting as much free money.
One parent earning £44K = no CB.
Two parents earning £43k each = CB.
Good work Osborne, you've just hit families (remember that guff about Tories being the party that traditionally supports families) and made it an incentive to not get promoted, earn bonuses or a payrise. My feeling was that he was way out of his depth to be chancellor has just been confirmed. This also creates a them and us mentality - which is exactly what the Tory party want. Those who collect benefits aka council house scum and those who don't.
I think it's more the unfair way they are doing it people are upset about e.g one earner rather than household income. There must have been a better way they could have done something.
Where do the childless couples in your argument think the food industry workers/care workers/health professionals who will feed & look after them etc in the future come from? Surely the progression of any society is based upon people having children. I can't see why anyone would be against the encouragement & promotion of child rearing!
The way in which the families are raised is of course a whole other argument.
1. If this cut will save £1bn per year, why is it not going to be implemented until 2013, ie in three billion pounds' time? (This, surely would have nothing to do with a Conservative plan to scrap this cut just prior to the next election, would it?)
2. It has been announced that Child Benefit will be removed from certain recipients based on their income (ie means). So why did the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Philip Hammond say, a few weeks before the General Election: We have made a decision to rule out means testing child benefit because it is a universal benefit. Talking to people, one of the things they appreciate about child benefit that it is universal and easily understood. To start to means test it would erode it ... It reassures them about the availability of the benefit.
I like your second point - looks like you've caught them out breaking a promise - I doubt it's the first and it won't be the last!
I liked the idea of limiting it to a couple of children though.
ps. Have to visit a friend on a council estate tonight...will be wary of the scum LOL.[/quote]
For the record I was brought up , sorry dragged up on the Downham estate, where we actually all looked after each other, we went and knocked next door to see if the old dear was ok , not to kick her teeth in and nick her telly. Did I say ALL people that live on estates are scum ,, NO ?
I have very good frineds on the Kidbrook estate, some of which are scum , im sure your friend is already aware of the shit elements on his estate.
Rest assured that they do have to sell it to the public, otherwise their MPs (Libs as well as Cons) may not vote for it. It will have to be in a future finance bill.
As for balancing a pay rise against the higher rate of tax, that is not the same thing. If you earn an extra £2k and that takes you into 40 per cent rate, you will lose an extra 20 per cent of whatever part of the raise is above the threshold. But you will still be better off. Under this proposal, you could be worse off as a result of a pay rise, because you will lose the child benefit, which could be more than the increase.
.............
The more I think about it, the more of an own goal it becomes.
Those on the threshold aren't going to be happy - they are supposedly hard working people who will need the benefit.
Those comfortably above the threshold are going to be upset - why pay higher rates of tax and not get a benefit back?
Single parent families - where the parent earns more than £43k - they are going to need every penny.
Those below the threshold - and likely to get a promotion/pay rise - thanks for nothing.
Those way below the threshold won't give a damn, they'll still collect, but might resent being labelled as benefit scroungers.
This hasn't been thought through at all, but nevertheless it will go down well with the Tory party faithfull, and in three years when it is finally introduced we will have become desensitised to it. As I say above the Lib-Dem members of the coalition are going to have a hard time selling this to their supporters. The accusation will be made by the more left-wing Lib-Dems that they are being used to hurry a piece of neo-liberalist Thatcherite lunacy through, and the Tory party you can be sure will sell it on the basis that the Lib-Dems voted for it.
Looking wider it gives Ed Miliband his first real opportunity to attack the Tory party, it'll be interesting to see how much he is able to make out of this and for us to see what his political instincts really are.
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
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.