Child Benefit

[mattx]

Missing the point: most of us agree that you shouldnt get the child benefit if you earn this amount, but is it fair that you will still get it if there are two of you who individually earn just below the higher tax threshold?

A quick straw poll at work showed that there are quite a few couple who are both teachers, who earn around £40k each and so under the new rules they would still get child benefit.

That can't be right, can it?

 

No it can't be right, but they most probably vote Tory so to them it is. Oh, and don't forget if those couples are married they will also get a tax break in a few years too......

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer - The Tories never change - welcome to the country run by millionaire Eton Boys.

[AyatollahPies]

No it can't be right, but they most probably vote Tory so to them it is. Oh, and don't forget if those couples are married they will also get a tax break in a few years too......

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer - The Tories never change - welcome to the country run by millionaire Eton Boys.

 

As opposed to the country run by millionaire champagne socialists? I think the previous government increased the divide between rich and poor far more than the Tories ever have done.

[apoth0r]

As opposed to the country run by millionaire champagne socialists? I think the previous government increased the divide between rich and poor far more than the Tories ever have done.

 

Totally agree, they jumped on the capitalism that the Americans love and so increased the divide that will take years to sort out.

 

I agree it isn't fair Witch but since when has it been fair to live in this country, I still prefer it is the 'well off' that suffer a little more than the people who just manage to get by.

[localzuk]

And just to add insult:

 

BBC News - Cameron hints at tax break amid child benefit row

 

So family 1. Mum earning £40,000 & Dad earning £40,000. £80,000 a year, + Child Benefit also get Tax break in 2015 for being married !! Great.

Family 2. One earner earning £45,000 = NO child benefit + NO Tax break because they are not married.

 

This lot could not run a bath, let alone the country.

 

Ah but that's the thing isn't it. Conservatives are just that, conservative. They want the traditional family unit back, and think they can do this via silly little financial changes. Wouldn't be at all surprised if their next trick on this path is to try and fiddle with abortion law, or divorce law.

[mattx]

As opposed to the country run by millionaire champagne socialists? I think the previous government increased the divide between rich and poor far more than the Tories ever have done.

 

Don't get me started on champagne socialists - I think they are worse than the Tory Millionaire Eton Boys.

[IanT]

typical tory policy, looking after the rich

[torledo]

Ah but that's the thing isn't it. Conservatives are just that, conservative. They want the traditional family unit back, and think they can do this via silly little financial changes. Wouldn't be at all surprised if their next trick on this path is to try and fiddle with abortion law, or divorce law.

 

but this child benefit change is arguably the anti traditional-family-unit policy. Households where both parents go out to work are not penalised, households where a single income at the higher rate of tax and a stay at home mother are the one's that lose out.

 

forget the married persons tax allowance, it's a meaningless token amount that would be 'given back', if anything ever comes of of it.

[teejay]

typical tory policy, looking after the rich

 

So a policy which is taking a benefit away from the rich is looking after the rich?

[Hecate]

What bugs me is the emphasis David Cameron puts on fairness when introducing something which is blatantly not fair

[HarryMonkey]

Just to play devil's advocate here a bit, if you rely so heavily on child benefit to provide for your children, should you have had them in the first place?

 

Maybe we should look at the whole child benefit thing and remove it all together.

[Dos_Box]

Just to play devil's advocate here a bit, if you rely so heavily on child benefit to provide for your children, should you have had them in the first place?

 

Maybe we should look at the whole child benefit thing and remove it all together.

 

Indeed. To willingly have children without first having the means to support them is wholly irresponsable.

[apoth0r]

That's perfectly fine under a free-spending labour government though!

"It is a right to have child benefit!" Is exactly what has been bred into society.

 

People need to start being responsible for themselves instead of relying on the country to bail them out all the time.

Lose your job > Get a new one (there are plenty out there!)

Have a child > Pay for it!

 

 

*When I say pay for it I don't mean in a "that will teach you" kind of way lol, kids are great and can't wait to have one of my own!

Edited October 7, 2010 by apoth0r
oops

[localzuk]

Lose your job > Get a new one (there are plenty out there!)

 

Agree with the whole personal responsibility thing, but I've gotta call you out on this falsehood. There are currently 2.47million(ish) unemployed people. There are not that many jobs. There were 467,000 jobs available for the 3 months up to August.

 

So, please can you not try to state that there are plenty of jobs.

[HarryMonkey]

Agree with the whole personal responsibility thing, but I've gotta call you out on this falsehood. There are currently 2.47million(ish) unemployed people. There are not that many jobs. There were 467,000 jobs available for the 3 months up to August.

 

So, please can you not try to state that there are plenty of jobs.

 

And most of those were part time. Many of the job adverts in my area are for just 16 hours a week!

[apoth0r]

so one person has 467,000 jobs to choose from, that's interesting, sounds like plenty to me!

 

 

*optomistic mood today, apologies if i sound like a numpty

Edited October 7, 2010 by apoth0r
apologies