Millionaire cabinet scrap child benefit for 'higher earners'

[JER]

Interesting tactic from failed journalist and least qualified chancellor in history, Gideon to alienate the daily mail readers.

 

BBC News - Child benefit to be scrapped for higher taxpayers

 

Oh, and it will cost a would-be doctor 100K to train in the future.

 

New politics, eh?

[TommyW]

so if two people in the family earn 40k each they keep the benefit but if one earns 44k and the other nothing they lose the benefit?

 

makes sense

[Guest davelfc]

Just scrap it unless you're on income support. Give lower paid married families a tax break to help.

 

If you're on income support you get it for any children you had when you dropped on to the benefit. But any subsequent children you bring into the world while you can't really afford to have them, you do not, or at least a lower amount.

[She Knows It]

Just scrap it unless you're on income support. Give lower paid married families a tax break to help.

 

If you're on income support you get it for any children you had when you dropped on to the benefit. But any subsequent children you bring into the world while you can't really afford to have them, you do not, or at least a lower amount.

 

I think they should scrap it all together. The only people that need it are working families on low wages.

 

You actually don't get it all all really if you're on Income Support. Well you do, but they deduct the same amount from your Income Support so you don't benefit from it. When I was on I.S. years ago you used to get paid by order book. You'd get a letter asking for your book back because C.B. had gone up by 1p a week, and they needed to deduct it from your I.S. Crazy.

[Strontium]

Interesting tactic from failed journalist and least qualified chancellor in history, Gideon to alienate the daily mail readers.

 

 

Do you agree with the policy or not? Or would you rather not comment for fear of damaging your agenda.

 

Let's have a quote from the Chancellor himself that might help you make up your mind:

 

Mr Osborne said: "It's very hard to justify taxing people on much lower incomes in order to pay the child benefit to some of the better off in our society."

 

Long overdue in my book, one wonders why Labour didn't manage to implement such a progressive measure in their 13 years in power.

[hamstrung]

Robbing Tory gets. Gets me 10 - 15 bottles of red a month.

[melons]

I think they should scrap it all together. The only people that need it are working families on low wages.

 

You actually don't get it all all really if you're on Income Support. Well you do, but they deduct the same amount from your Income Support so you don't benefit from it. When I was on I.S. years ago you used to get paid by order book. You'd get a letter asking for your book back because C.B. had gone up by 1p a week, and they needed to deduct it from your I.S. Crazy.

 

They changed it last year (November i think), that and absent parent child support are now not classed as income. Meaning you could be on a CS income of £1500 a month and still get income support, housing benefit and all that other stuff.

 

They should just scrap it all together, those on low incomes have it incorporated into child tax credit.

[JER]

Do you agree with the policy or not? Or would you rather not comment for fear of damaging your agenda.

 

Let's have a quote from the Chancellor himself that might help you make up your mind:

 

 

 

Long overdue in my book, one wonders why Labour didn't manage to implement such a progressive measure in their 13 years in power.

 

 

I'm against the way this is implemented - a couple who earn 43k each would still get it, yet a couple where one partner earns 44k and the other stays at home to look after the children doesn't. That is insane, not that I would expect anything less from a chancellor that studied history at University.

 

[dirty_sanchez]

I can't see what the problem with this is. Obviously it should be done on family income rather than individual incomes, but if a family is earning say £60k a year for example, that's more than enough money to fund their own children without needing subsidising. There's a danger that child benefit becomes simply "paying someone to have children".

[23CARRAGOLD]

I'm more worried that this is a small hit on the well off before they continue the, already in motion, purge on the less well off. This to me is a small part of the "we're in this together" grand scheme of things.

 

I'm happy with them doing this but through history these twats cant be trusted. Theres always a kick in the bollocks waiting round the corner for the average men with these cunts.

[dirty_sanchez]

I'm more worried that this is a small hit on the well off before they continue the, already in motion, purge on the less well off. This to me is a small part of the "we're in this together" grand scheme of things.

 

Wierd, that's almost word for word what the BBC's economic correspondent just said.

[RedinSweden]

Wierd, that's almost word for word what the BBC's economic correspondent just said.

 

Not this bit though?

 

I'm happy with them doing this but through history these twats cant be trusted. Theres always a kick in the bollocks waiting round the corner for the average men with these cunts.

[She Knows It]

They changed it last year (November i think), that and absent parent child support are now not classed as income. Meaning you could be on a CS income of £1500 a month and still get income support, housing benefit and all that other stuff.

 

They should just scrap it all together, those on low incomes have it incorporated into child tax credit.

 

Christ, I feel a phonecall to the CSA coming on.

[JER]

You can't say they're doing nothing to create employment - creative accountants will be beating off work with a shitty stick..

[Michael Howard]

It's this absurdity that a family with 3 kids and 2 working parents on £44k each - total family income of £88k a year - will still retain their £2.5k child benefit per annum.

 

Yet a hard working single parent with 3 kids on £45k pa gets nil.

 

As will a family with one working parent on £45k+ and one stay at home parent.

 

 

How can it be right or fair to take £2.5k pa from the latter 2 families but not from the first example ?

 

The only explanation for this blatantly unfair scenario is that otherwsie it is too expensive to means test the full family income. Yet IDS is boasting how IT can now keep a real time check on people's earnigns month by month to ensure they don;t get into the overpayment of tax credits that are then demanded back scenario.

 

They haven't got the poliical courage to either raise taxation or to abolish CB across the board. Instead they have cobbled together an absolute dog's breakfast of a proposal. You can justify the case for abolishing CB and paying it back to thoe in most need through child tax credits. You can make the case for means testing of CB in the traditional sense. And you can make the case for raising higher rate of taxation to pay for "all our children". All of them have pros and cons but none are as palpably unfair as what Osborne has come up with.

[Michael Howard]

Christ, I feel a phonecall to the CSA coming on.

 

I'm wondering whether Mrs H and I would be better off divorced and instead of most of my salary going striaght into the joint account it can go via the CSA. She'll keep her child benefit and I'll live in a caravan on the drive. She would qualify for a fair few benefits as well i reckon - even with IDS's new system.

 

How do i make this idea sound romantic then ?

[She Knows It]

I'm wondering whether Mrs H and I would be better off divorced and instead of most of my salary going striaght into the joint account it can go via the CSA. She'll keep her child benefit and I'll live in a caravan on the drive. She would qualify for a fair few benefits as well i reckon - even with IDS's new system.

 

How do i make this idea sound romantic then ?

 

Similar situation, but my bloke was telling me about a couple he knows who got divorced, purely so their son would qualify for financial support towards uni. They plan to remarry as soon as he graduates, but couldn't afford for him to go otherwise.

 

Going off topic a bit, but are the above 2 scenarios any different from claiming and working on the side, or having a live-in partner when purporting to be a single-parent?

[Michael Howard]

Similar situation, but my bloke was telling me about a couple he knows who got divorced, purely so their son would qualify for financial support towards uni. They plan to remarry as soon as he graduates, but couldn't afford for him to go otherwise.

 

Going off topic a bit, but are the above 2 scenarios any different from claiming and working on the side, or having a live-in partner when purporting to be a single-parent?

 

It would have to be "living apart". Couldn't be a sham.

 

To be honest I'd be quite happy in the van. Own telly. Bit of peace and quiet. Cook what I fancy. But i could stroll across the 10' to the house to spend an hours quality time with the kids and put them to bed of an evening. Then i'd head off to the van and she can watch Eastenders and corrie.

 

We could do the odd joint trip or camping holiday for the kids and even have the odd shag for old times sake.

 

But I think that would be living apart enough for HMRC.

[She Knows It]

It would have to be "living apart". Couldn't be a sham.

 

To be honest I'd be quite happy in the van. Own telly. Bit of peace and quiet. Cook what I fancy. But i could stroll across the 10' to the house to spend an hours quality time with the kids and put them to bed of an evening. Then i'd head off to the van and she can watch Eastenders and corrie.

 

We could do the odd joint trip or camping holiday for the kids and even have the odd shag for old times sake.

 

But I think that would be living apart enough for HMRC.

 

Sounds like the perfect marriage to me.

[Section_31]

Don't know the ins and outs of it, but the idea of universal benefits is ludicrous and should have been done away with years ago. Richard Branson probably gets child benefit, which was introduced after WWII to encourage people to breed and repopulate the country.

 

Crazy.

[JER]

Wonder if Stronts would care to comment on this?

 

 

 

Lib Dems vote to save 'universal' child benefit

Published by Ross Macmillan for 24dash.com in Communities and also in Local Government

Tuesday 21st September 2010 - 12:13pm

 

Post a comment

Money

Other communities stories

Minister unveils new generation of 'work clubs' to get Britons back into work

Osborne's cuts to hit middle-class and jobless families

Typical 'unruly' family costs taxpayers nearly £275,000 a year

Benefits cheat who claimed 'he could barely walk' jailed

Tube strike row escalates as unions call for Prime Minister's intervention

Advertisement

 

 

 

Liberal Democrats today voted overwhelmingly to safeguard the "simple to understand, easy to claim" universal child benefit.

 

The party's annual conference backed an amendment to a policy motion to ensure that child benefit would not be means-tested or taxed.

 

The vote in Liverpool came after party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said he would be happy to give up his family's £2,450-a-year child benefit payments.

 

His remarks on Sunday were interpreted as a signal that universal welfare payments could be stripped from the better-off as part of public spending cuts.

 

During debate on the motion - entitled Ensuring Fairness In A Time Of Austerity - MP Bob Russell (Colchester) forcefully spoke out against public sector cuts.

 

"I do not accept that cuts are fair - they are a contradiction in terms," he said.

 

"We have to recognise that 75% of the cuts are Labour's cuts and we need to keep hammering that message, but it doesn't make them fair."

[Stu Monty]

Wonder if Stronts would care to comment on this?

 

 

 

Lib Dems vote to save 'universal' child benefit

Published by Ross Macmillan for 24dash.com in Communities and also in Local Government

Tuesday 21st September 2010 - 12:13pm

 

Post a comment

Money

Other communities stories

Minister unveils new generation of 'work clubs' to get Britons back into work

Osborne's cuts to hit middle-class and jobless families

Typical 'unruly' family costs taxpayers nearly £275,000 a year

Benefits cheat who claimed 'he could barely walk' jailed

Tube strike row escalates as unions call for Prime Minister's intervention

Advertisement

 

 

 

Liberal Democrats today voted overwhelmingly to safeguard the "simple to understand, easy to claim" universal child benefit.

 

The party's annual conference backed an amendment to a policy motion to ensure that child benefit would not be means-tested or taxed.

 

The vote in Liverpool came after party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said he would be happy to give up his family's £2,450-a-year child benefit payments.

 

His remarks on Sunday were interpreted as a signal that universal welfare payments could be stripped from the better-off as part of public spending cuts.

 

During debate on the motion - entitled Ensuring Fairness In A Time Of Austerity - MP Bob Russell (Colchester) forcefully spoke out against public sector cuts.

 

"I do not accept that cuts are fair - they are a contradiction in terms," he said.

 

"We have to recognise that 75% of the cuts are Labour's cuts and we need to keep hammering that message, but it doesn't make them fair."

 

Haha! What a laughable abdication of responsibility. They aren't in power anymore Bob, you are. If you don't like things that they were proposing them you don't do them, that's what being in government is. Every single policy put in place during this term will be the government's doing, you pathetic dribble of a man. Grow a set of fucking balls and either stand up for what you're doing or condemn it on it's own merit, and not as some spinned to fuck nonsense about it being Labour cuts. "We need to keep hammering that message" - New politics, eh. "Labour agree with 75% of our cuts" is the truth, so say that and convince people you're right to go another 25%.

 

I agree with cutting universal benefit but do not for one second trust this government to do it effectively or fairly.

[Thants]

It's about time the UK noticed having a child isn't a 'benefit'. Parents should pay for the resources they're using, not get paid for it.

[Torvald Utne]

I think UK taxes are already too high for what we get and it's also a little unfair to pay more taxes and get less services for doing so.

[BatChainPuller]

Thin end of what's going to be a very thick wedge. Couldn't really give a toss one way or the other - bit like the Audit Commission but without the comedy spite.