# Child benefit



## one_question

What's people's thoughts on the new Child Benefit ruling? 

Basically, any household that receives child benefit where one or both parents are in the higher tax bracket will have their child benefit stopped (from 2013).

Now, people may say that someone earning over £44k (£43,875) should be able to get by without child benefit but this proposal seems to have been thought up by some college student - and not a good student at that.

What happens if you earn £43,800 and you get offered overtime (assuming that you get paid overtime) and you have two kids? Child benefit on two children is something like £1,700 a year. Get £100 overtime (taxed - so you'll take home about £65) and you lose £1,700 (un-taxed) child benefit.

What if there is one wage earner in the household earning £45k - child benefit goes. You live next door to a household with two wage earners on £43k each - they keep the child benefit. 

Just seems crazy to me. 

I agree that cutbacks should be made but this one seems to have been done by some YTS person.

Anyone else with any views?

G


----------



## EastUpperGooner

You can't ask question like that on a forum full of middle aged tories. lol


----------



## bigmc

I think cutting it for those earning over £44K is a great idea, it should be £44K total earning though so you don't get the scenario below. 
"What if there is one wage earner in the household earning £45k - child benefit goes. You live next door to a household with two wage earners on £43k each - they keep the child benefit."


----------



## JARS

one_question said:


> What's people's thoughts on the new Child Benefit ruling?
> 
> What happens if you earn £43,800 and you get offered overtime (assuming that you get paid overtime) and you have two kids? Child benefit on two children is something like £1,700 a year. Get £100 overtime (taxed - so you'll take home about £65) and you lose £1,700 (un-taxed) child benefit.
> 
> G


i think it's a good idea personally.

i know that what ever money you earn, you leave to your means (in general) but they have to claw the this deficit somhow, this is one of many ways unfortunately.

in response to your question above... it's no different to mums now that are only able to do 16 hours a week or their benefit gets cut... they simply don't do it!!


----------



## The Cueball

I think anyone who has children should be able to afford them without the help of anyone else....

I don't see why (some of) my tax money should go to help raise peoples children when they can't take the proper steps to live within their means....

:thumb:


----------



## Alzak

Hi All 
I do earn much less than 44k mark much less and I do not get a penny in any benefit and I do not see any reason to apply for one in my opinion it is shame that someone who got more that 44k complain about this as 44k is a lot of money some people live for much less and they are happy


----------



## bigmc

You're entitled to it, I thought it was paid automatically?


----------



## robj20

If you cant afford to have kids, don't have them simple.
People are all to keen on getting something for nothing or living beyond there means.


----------



## justina3

robj20 said:


> If you cant afford to have kids, don't have them simple.
> People are all to keen on getting something for nothing or living beyond there means.


Think that's looking at things through black and white glasses where as life is often a shade of grey


----------



## m4rkie23

The Cueball said:


> I think anyone who has children should be able to afford them without the help of anyone else....
> 
> I don't see why (some of) my tax money should go to help raise peoples children when they can't take the proper steps to live within their means....
> 
> :thumb:


I must admit I agree with this statement.

If they are going to do the intended cuts, then there has to be a cut off, so there will always be people that miss out.

If your earning more than 44k a year and are not single (i.e. 2 incomes) then you should not be being given tax money to support your children.

HOWEVER, why (if i did earn more than 44k a year) should I NOT get something that others do when they don't work and live off the state.

Is no black and white here.


----------



## CJA Valeting

How about just putting the limit at £50k for the couple and have done with it.

They have messed up big time by giving it to everyone, and now they have over looked a massive error by saying that if one person earns over 44k they lose out yet 2 people on a combined income of 80k still get it.

It doesn't take much to see what the government should have done.


----------



## Alzak

there is one bloke in my work and he refuse to do any overtime as explain he say that if he will do some overtimes he loose a right to get tax credit is fu...ing joke why I pay so much tax just for people like him? 
His Missus do not want to work so now she is pregnant with 3th kid is that normal?


----------



## The Cueball

justina3 said:


> Think that's looking at things through black and white glasses where as life is often a shade of grey


I agree life is very grey, but with the benefit culture in the UK it's not really; there are millions of people in the UK whose sole existence is to churn out babies knowing full well they don't have the money to support them....

We seem to have got mixed up with that is essential in life and what is a nice thing to have.

And while this may a slight generalisation, there are so many documents cases of these baby factories, just producing more baby factories, the whole family is on support for this and benefit for that, they are nothing but non producers, so why - as a country - do we continue to support these low life's?????

Would the greater good of the nation be damaged so irrevocable if these people did not exist?

Even if you have a nice job then lose it, you need to adjust your lifestyle for this fact.... not stick your hand out while trying to maintain the illusion...

The UK is very much a "fur coat and no knickers" country; it's really quite sad and pathetic.....

Maybe I am just fed up of being the scapegoat for everything that happens, ooh you have a good job, you need to pay more tax, help the rest out....just sick to the back teeth of the attitude of this country - why should people even try and better themselves when it just gets taken back and used for pathetic people who just "can't be bothered"?

I find it strange that you need a licence for a car, for some animals and guns, but any fool with a d**k and slapper with an inability to shut her legs can get supported by a nation...

Actually, here is a real test - someone - anyone find me a person, a family that genuinely needs help and needs a payout to get by in life.....just 1 person, that is all I ask...someone that is doing everything possible to live, someone that genuinely only has the VERY essentials to live, that is not self destructive, that is not lazy and genuinely needs help to feed their children... please, someone restore my believe in the system of the UK benefits........

:thumb:


----------



## borinous

should be based on total household earnings not on individual earnings. Like someone else already mentioned its completely backwards to stop the benefit for a household where one member earns £45k but the couple next door who earn 30-40k each (total of 60-80k) still get it!!


----------



## justina3

Actually, here is a real test – someone – anyone find me a person, a family that genuinely needs help and needs a payout to get by in life.....just 1 person, that is all I ask...someone that is doing everything possible to live, someone that genuinely only has the VERY essentials to live, that is not self destructive, that is not lazy and genuinely needs help to feed their children... please, someone restore my believe in the system of the UK benefits........

I love it and to be honest after reading your post i agree with you 99.9% 

Very good friend of mine of twenty years runs his own building company for the last ten years for the first five years he and his wife disabled done very well he had good income from the building company and his wife who couldnt get around very well but still worked from home writting small articles for the local paper, they then decided to start a family and had a baby girl not long after to whom i am god farther to, about three maybe four years ago we all know what happend to the building industry and the sites he had running funding run dry two of them where local authority contracts who just put the whole project on stop, now he was faced with laying staff off labouring himself anything he could do to keep the one or two small sites he had left running at the lowest costs he could to make money his wifes work also dried up as.

The council have advised that due to massive spending cuts the projects are to be shelved this year again so now he is taking on any work he can spoke to him last week and he was hanging doors in the local pub to make ends meet he has sold his van now for a much older one so no monthly payments to make his wife sold her car so they share vehicles all in all they have and are doing everything in there power to keep there heads above water through no fault of his own of course he has savings which he is slowly eating into to live.

any of this his fault no is he doing all he can before he puts his hands out for help yes he is, should he be blamed for having a daughter no


----------



## Gruffs

The real reason that the Alliance are doing this is that they know those earning £44K+ are resigned to having to dig the country out of the pile of ****e that we are in.


----------



## one_question

Alzak said:


> there is one bloke in my work and he refuse to do any overtime as explain he say that if he will do some overtimes he loose a right to get tax credit is fu...ing joke why I pay so much tax just for people like him?
> His Missus do not want to work so now she is pregnant with 3th kid is that normal?


Your colleague at work is talking through his butt! I'm assuming that we're talking child tax credit (CTC) here.

CTC gives you a tenner a week for your children - no matter if you have 1 or 20 children - it's a tenner. However, if a child is under 12 months - it's 20 pound a week. This payment is means tested - up to £50k household income - you get the full amount - this then drops by £1 per year for every £15 over £50k up to £58k where you get nowt. So, if your colleague gets £150 in overtime (over £50k), his child tax credits will reduce by 20pence a week. I believe that next year, the £50k is going to reduce to £40k.

Right, back to the child benefit. The reason that the government has put in the blanket 'high tax bracket' rule is that it would cut down on the administration and creating a new system. However, the system is already there in the form of Child Tax Credits! It would be fairer to merge the child benefit onto the child tax credit system.

My issue is this. If someone earns £43,876 a year, they will be £2920* a year WORSE off (pre-tax) than someone that earns £43,875. This assumes two children. If they have three children then it's £4082.

*£2920 calculation as follows:

child benefit for 2 children = £1752. Divide 60 and multiply 100 to get equivalent earnings amount.

The debt that the country owes needs to be paid back. Child benefit, child tax credit, raising taxes and cutting benefits for people who won't work are all options. However, it needs to be performed in a fairer manner.

G


----------



## organgrinder

one_question said:


> My issue is this. If someone earns £43,876 a year, they will be £2920* a year WORSE off (pre-tax) than someone that earns £43,875. This assumes two children. If they have three children then it's £4082.
> 
> ...... it needs to be performed in a fairer manner.
> 
> G


I agree completely. A fairer system would be to leave child allowance alone and put higher rate tax and even basic rate tax, up by 1%. As it is, the "tax increase" targets only families and is anti family which is exactly the opposite from the election promises.

Ill thought out I think. We are all in this together so we should all pay (unless you are a banker in which case you should pay a bit more)


----------



## busaboy23

its not something for nothing tho is it? personally my missus and i have contributed in excess of £220,000 in tax and nat insurance contributions in the last 15 years and you can at least double that by the time our son grows up ...not far short of half a million pounds...we'll get 18000 in child allowance in his lifetime...now factor in the cost of raising that child and the amount of vat alone that will raise in 18 years and ill guarantee its a sight more than the 20 quid a week we get from the government..i have never had a penny in benefit from the government before my son was born and to be frank the cost of living in this country and the amount of taxes i will pay in my lifetime i think 20 quid a week back for 18 years is not unreasonable:thumb:

Its the spongers who contribute nothing to society you should look to


----------



## impster

If this country had the balls to kick illegal immigrants out we'd be in a better position. We're paying billions for people who shouldn't even be in this country. It would be far cheaper to send them back first class to their country of origin. If they do have a case for seeking asylym, then fair enough, but many illegal immigrants come here because we're a soft option.

Then we come on to the scroungers - those people who will fake injuries to get off work and collect benefits - again, I realise that there are genuine cases who can't work for whatever reason, but those benefit cheats, they should be found work repairing potholes or something.

Then of course, we have bottomless pits of wasted money like the Ryder Cup (my own Welsh Assembly Government gave them 40 million to hold it at the billionaire-owned Celtic Manor hotel), and the 2012 olympics. God knows how much money has been spent on that. Would the money not be better invested back in our country? What about kick starting maufacturing by introducing old fashioned apprenticeships to the UK using some of that money?

Sorry, but this country's a pile of sh1te at the moment.

I think the child benefit issue is pennies compared to what the government could be saving.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not racist at all, no offence intended here, purely my own opinions.

Edit again: While i'm on a rant, (i'm in a bad mood sorry people), the government should bring back national service of some sort to instil some patriotic team spirit amongst our young people. Let's get em off the street corners and bus stops, and doing some good for themselves at the same time. Was it Boris Johnson who suggested 'Community Service' as a modern version of 'National Service' - bloody good idea i reckon.


----------



## The Cueball

busaboy23 said:


> its not something for nothing tho is it? personally my missus and i have contributed in excess of £220,000 in tax and nat insurance contributions in the last 15 years and you can at least double that by the time our son grows up ...not far short of half a million pounds...we'll get 18000 in child allowance in his lifetime...now factor in the cost of raising that child and the amount of vat alone that will raise in 18 years and ill guarantee its a sight more than the 20 quid a week we get from the government..i have never had a penny in benefit from the government before my son was born and to be frank the cost of living in this country and the amount of taxes i will pay in my lifetime i think 20 quid a week back for 18 years is not unreasonable:thumb:
> 
> Its the spongers who contribute nothing to society you should look to


OK, just to take your idea....

I will pay more than you and your wife pay in tax and ni...

I don't have any kids though, so what should I get back from the government?????

Why should you get any money back because you have a kid, something which I am guessing YOU chose to do?

:thumb:


----------



## impster

The Cueball said:


> Why should you get any money back because you have a kid, something which I am guessing YOU chose to do?
> 
> :thumb:


Didn't Whitney Houston sing that she believes that children are the future?


----------



## robj20

The Cueball said:


> OK, just to take your idea....
> 
> I will pay more than you and your wife pay in tax and ni...
> 
> I don't have any kids though, so what should I get back from the government?????
> 
> Why should you get any money back because you have a kid, something which I am guessing YOU chose to do?
> 
> :thumb:


Couldnt agree more.


----------



## The Cueball

impster said:


> Didn't Whitney Houston sing that she believes that children are the future?


She may have, she also married Bobbie Brown and snorted a hell of a lot of white powder....you can check out more about her here

I'm not sure of your point or the relevance to anything TBH...



:thumb:


----------



## justina3

waste of a good voice that was still her choice no one forced the white stuff up her snout


----------



## impster

The Cueball said:


> I'm not sure of your point or the relevance to anything TBH...
> 
> 
> 
> :thumb:


Neither am I any more...It's been one of those weird days for me today.


----------



## Beancounter

Back on topic.....

Some 'interesting' views from those with/without children. 

I think another issue is that regardless of what level of income people are on, from the minimum wage to a 'fat cat' (or whether they have children or not) is that people become accustomed/used to living off a certain amount of money per week/month.

If they are then subject to a reduction in that level, then its a fair assumption that they will be aggrieved by that decision. This not only relates to the family allowance but any changes to income (eg tax, NI..) 

Personally, I agree with the posts that the 'system' is at fault here.... especially if what we are reading about the two people earning just below the limit still allowed to claim being true!


----------



## busaboy23

The Cueball said:


> OK, just to take your idea....
> 
> I will pay more than you and your wife pay in tax and ni...
> 
> I don't have any kids though, so what should I get back from the government?????
> 
> Why should you get any money back because you have a kid, something which I am guessing YOU chose to do?
> 
> :thumb:


who's to say one day you won't have a kid...or have to claim sickness benefit?....I'm not advocating the benefit system or how it works....tbh there's too many people milking the system...the point of the benefit when it was introduced was to help the parent pay for the upkeep of a child.....people in factories making babyfood, nappies, clothes, teachers to educate them is just a minute example of the things created to raise children....its all jobs created because people are raising kids and helping to feed the economy....thats why you don't get nowt rightly or wrongly....also you guess wrong we didn't choose to at the time and were using contraception....sometimes **** just happens


----------



## one_question

The Cueball said:


> She may have, she also married Bobbie Brown and snorted a hell of a lot of white powder....you can check out more about her here
> 
> I'm not sure of your point or the relevance to anything TBH...
> 
> 
> 
> :thumb:


I could go on about how much a child now will contribute to the economy in the future. They will contribute massively in the form of taxes as well as by doing something useful like working - be that as a Doctor or as a road sweeper. Even with the current benefit system, it is essential that children are born to keep an even population age grouping.

The thing about this child benefit cut is that it has not been thought out in a fair manner. Out of the 15% of families that get their benefit cut, there will probably be far more families out there where both parents are earning under the threshold but have a household income far higher that the sole wage earner on £45k.

If the government can put forward such a sloppy solution for child benefit, what will they do next? Maybe instead of taxing on all income above £44k at 40% - what it they taxed all of that £44k at 40%. That would bring in loads of money but, as anyone can see, is badly thought out.

They've got to sort out the university tuition fees yet. Let's hope that that isn't as big a fiasco.

The Child benefit needs cutting. But, it should be on a household income and it should be a graduated cut so that a household on £60k (say) receives 100% whilst £75k receives nowt. Then, to save even more money, gradually draw those figures down by £1 - 5k a year.

I wonder what benefits I would get if I earned less - or didn't work at all? Dentist. Prescription. Pocket money for my kids to stay at school when they're 16. Maybe not buy a house and get housing benefit.

G


----------



## The Cueball

busaboy23 said:


> who's to say one day you won't have a kid...or have to claim sickness benefit?....I'm not advocating the benefit system or how it works....tbh there's too many people milking the system...the point of the benefit when it was introduced was to help the parent pay for the upkeep of a child.....people in factories making babyfood, nappies, clothes, teachers to educate them is just a minute example of the things created to raise children....its all jobs created because people are raising kids and helping to feed the economy....thats why you don't get nowt rightly or wrongly....also you guess wrong we didn't choose to at the time and were using contraception....sometimes **** just happens


Me, I say I won't have a kid.... I know I won't.... it's impossible.

What has sickness benefit got to do with it...your post was about you paying in tax and ni, so should get help raising your kid...

All the jobs you mention would be there if people never got benefit, so not sure what you mean by that bit...

And no offense, if your kid was a s**t happens, then you still had a choice not to have it....

you still chose to have your kid....

:thumb:


----------



## The Cueball

one_question said:


> I could go on about how much a child now will contribute to the economy in the future. They will contribute massively in the form of taxes as well as by doing something useful like working - be that as a Doctor or as a road sweeper. Even with the current benefit system, it is essential that children are born to keep an even population age grouping.


Wow, that is some massive rose tinted specs you have there my friend...

I really hope your are right....although I very much doubt it...

:thumb:


----------



## busaboy23

The Cueball said:


> Me, I say I won't have a kid.... I know I won't.... it's impossible.
> 
> What has sickness benefit got to do with it...your post was about you paying in tax and ni, so should get help raising your kid...
> 
> All the jobs you mention would be there if people never got benefit, so not sure what you mean by that bit...
> 
> And no offense, if your kid was a s**t happens, then you still had a choice not to have it....
> 
> you still chose to have your kid....
> 
> :thumb:


lets be honest here it don't matter what anyone says here its not going to change your opinion...its politics after all and next to religion its the biggest cause of grief to mankind....if you can't see that raising children is probably the most important aspect of any economy and without it its the end of mankind then its you who is wearing the rose tinted specs....people that raise kids put more into the economy in the long term....fact....some of them need help to do that and if they put in their whole life then they should get a little back....I'm sorry you don't get any of your hard earned back i really am but thats not to say some people don't deserve a little help along the way


----------



## The Cueball

busaboy23 said:


> lets be honest here it don't matter what anyone says here its not going to change your opinion...
> 
> its politics after all and next to religion its the biggest cause of grief to mankind....
> 
> if you can't see that raising children is probably the most important aspect of any economy and without it its the end of mankind then its you who is wearing the rose tinted specs....
> 
> people that raise kids put more into the economy in the long term....fact....
> 
> some of them need help to do that and if they put in their whole life then they should get a little back....
> 
> I'm sorry you don't get any of your hard earned back i really am but thats not to say some people don't deserve a little help along the way


Please stop confusing your opinion with facts...unless you are prepared to back up your wild claims with hard evidence, it's a tad embarrassing to be honest... 

I notice you only have very little posts, which means you have no idea who or what I am, so please do not tell me what I will and will not do with my opinions....If someone present's a correct, well thought out argument, with facts, then I am very prepared to change my view, as I have done several thousand times in the past...

I also don't get where the doomsday bit's of the end of mankind come into play, I am not against anyone raising a family, I would love to do it myself, and my whole point is people should only do it if they can afford it...very simple.

Don't be sorry for me, I have lots of ways to make sure my earnings are mine and not given to anyone else....and I do give plenty to this economy of ours, I would like to see someone with a kid match me actually..... 

People who can't control themselves or live within their means do not deserve any help (IMO), they are what is wrong with this country, this now, now, now attitude compiled with a gimmie, gimmie, gimmie greed....

We became a nation of consumers, driven by greed, but with no money to back it all up.......

I do agree lots of people need help, but giving them money doesn't solve the issues - we are fast becoming a morally bankrupt nation, and that is something we need to deal with quickly, rather than handouts of cash for the greedy...oh, sorry, needy :wall:

:thumb:


----------



## robj20

Come round to Manchester and see the family down the road and you wont be thinking that, she has 8 kids and 2 of them already have kids and only 16 and 18.
She must make a fortune claiming for all those and none of them work, should flatten the house with them in it if you ask me.


----------



## m4rkie23

I agree with the comment about a large percentage of the population living beyond their means being the downfall of society. 

Me and the GF have currently been saving for 18 months so we can afford our own mortgage and still need to wait a few more months to get to the magic 15% deposit.
We both know if she got pregnant and I "disappeared" she would get a free house and full support for the child, and TBH earn more than she does atm.

But no, we'll still continue to work our assess off, pay ridiculous amounts of tax on everything we buy and do, just so little miss chavette can support her kids and drug habits. 

Equality rules.


----------



## busaboy23

christ....no i don't know you and don't care to the reverse is also true...I'm sure your huge post count gives you the right to belittle most people's opinions.... i don't see you presenting any facts here either, it was a debate and i entered into it with my opinion as i thought that was what the point of forums and the threads contained therein ...yes i'm new to the forum but does that mean my opinion counts any less?

you talk of people being greedy and then boast of how you have lots of ways of keeping your earnings to yourself? 

I didn't come in here for an argument just to express my opinion its unfortunate that it seems every forum has its keyboard warriors that want to trample over everyone else's


----------



## The Cueball

busaboy23 said:


> christ....no i don't know you and don't care to the reverse is also true...I'm sure your huge post count gives you the right to belittle most people's opinions.... i don't see you presenting any facts here either, it was a debate and i entered into it with my opinion as i thought that was what the point of forums and the threads contained therein ...yes i'm new to the forum but does that mean my opinion counts any less?
> 
> you talk of people being greedy and then boast of how you have lots of ways of keeping your earnings to yourself?
> 
> I didn't come in here for an argument just to express my opinion its unfortunate that it seems every forum has its keyboard warriors that want to trample over everyone else's


You are getting wound up and missing my point...take a step back, have a deep breath and actually read what I posted....

You are claiming things are facts, when they are not...that is my problem, this is a debate, opinions are valid, but making up facts is not...

I am giving my opinion, not facts...I have never said anything in my posts is a fact, it's all IMO

Your opinions are as valid as mine and I have never belittled them, but don't post them up as facts...

My comment about your post count referred to knowing me, nothing else, and I am not a keyboard warrior, just do not appreciate people who do not know me, telling me how I will react to things....

I am not being greedy, because I am keeping what is mine, what I have earned, to be greedy is to ask for things that you don't deserve, expecting other people to pay for your life.....

:thumb:


----------



## busaboy23

I'll make this my last post in this thread....i only stated one thing i believed to be fact and that was people that have families add more to the economy than those that dont and i stand by that... if everyone packed up having children tomorrow 100 years or so from now there would be no economy that is a fact...of course that is not going to happen and its not a realistic scenario but it is a fact all the same...you just chose to jump on my opinion for what reason i don't know...maybe its because i'm new here ?

I don't agree with people popping out kids and not working as a lifestyle choice in fact it repulses me...i bust my **** 60 hours a week to provide for my family
and my missus works full time also and yes we get a little back is that so wrong?

Some like yourself will think yes and others in the same boat as me will think not

Hopefully we may chat again in a less controversial thread


----------



## The Cueball

busaboy23 said:


> you just chose to jump on my opinion for what reason i don't know...maybe its because i'm new here ?
> 
> Hopefully we may chat again in a less controversial thread


I didn't jump on you, I merely challenged you posting facts when they are not, something that you have now admitted to, it's nothing about you being new......

I'm sure we will chat again, somewhere else... 

:thumb:


----------



## alan hanson

Im with the opinion peeps with a house hold income of 40k plus should still get something. why shouldnt they? do the losers down the street who dont want to work deserve it more? do the middle class deserve it more as they have a lower income? putting a price on whether someone should have kids and get help which in some posts is what has been said is crazy. thats what the benefits are there for and why we contribute to them. the same could be said with every benefit surely?


----------



## kh904

busaboy23 said:


> I'll make this my last post in this thread....i only stated one thing i believed to be fact and that was people that have families add more to the economy than those that dont and i stand by that... if everyone packed up having children tomorrow 100 years or so from now there would be no economy that is a fact...


I'm sorry, but i don't believe imo that it's a fact.

With the current economic system, an ever expanding population is preferred to support the current pensioners & economic growth. But if that's the case the population will always have to increase to infinity with time.

Also remember that an ever-increasing population means the use of more resources, homes, school etc, and the quality of life .... well there won't be any!

The transport system has gone past it's comfortable capacity limits (well in london in my experience).

The benefits system needs a complete overhaul. It encourages people not to work/cheat.
Mother nature has the perfect system to balance everything out over time (if the human race doesn't get involved). In the wild, the strongest & fittest survive, but we (humans) have got it the other way - the 'undesirables/chavs/scum' are breeding at a much faster rate than the 'decent' population. 
It may sound harsh, and unsympathetic, but the current benefits system has encouraged that.

Don't get me wrong, there are some cases where benefits are genuinely needed for no fault of the claiment, and being human, we should have a duty to look after and care to the vunerable, but the hardworking taxpayer is becoming the vunerable.

The high earners also need to pay their fair share of tax, and need to be sorted out, as they are not free of blame either (as are politicians/governments), but this will be a good start.


----------



## kh904

Interesting clip (some parts irrelevant) I recommend you watch it all!


----------



## Gruffs

kh904 said:


> I'm sorry, but i don't believe imo that it's a fact.
> 
> With the current economic system, an ever expanding population is preferred to support the current pensioners & economic growth. But if that's the case the population will always have to increase to infinity with time.
> 
> Also remember that an ever-increasing population means the use of more resources, homes, school etc, and the quality of life .... well there won't be any!
> 
> The transport system has gone past it's comfortable capacity limits (well in london in my experience).
> 
> The benefits system needs a complete overhaul. It encourages people not to work/cheat.
> Mother nature has the perfect system to balance everything out over time (if the human race doesn't get involved). In the wild, the strongest & fittest survive, but we (humans) have got it the other way - the 'undesirables/chavs/scum' are breeding at a much faster rate than the 'decent' population.
> It may sound harsh, and unsympathetic, but the current benefits system has encouraged that.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, there are some cases where benefits are genuinely needed for no fault of the claiment, and being human, we should have a duty to look after and care to the vunerable, but the hardworking taxpayer is becoming the vunerable.
> 
> *The high earners also need to pay their fair share of tax,* and need to be sorted out, as they are not free of blame either (as are politicians/governments), but this will be a good start.


I agreed with almost all of your post up until this point. Higher wage earners DO pay their fair share of tax. In fact, on everything over £37400, they pay MORE (income tax) than everyone else. Other than that, top post.

People are already resigned to paying for the scum of the earth as we have a duty of care to look after those that are less fortunate than others. For every scrounger, there is a pensioner in a home that could have been a scrounger all their life. Or, just might have been a hero in WW2 or Korea.


----------



## kh904

Gruffs said:


> I agreed with almost all of your post up until this point. Higher wage earners DO pay their fair share of tax. In fact, on everything over £37400, they pay MORE (income tax) than everyone else. Other than that, top post.
> 
> People are already resigned to paying for the scum of the earth as we have a duty of care to look after those that are less fortunate than others. For every scrounger, there is a pensioner in a home that could have been a scrounger all their life. Or, just might have been a hero in WW2 or Korea.


Sorryi didn't make myself clear (too tired & have a cold, lol). 
I meant the extremely high earners who avoid paying most of the tax that they should pay (off-shore accounts, moving money about etc). 
As it was reported a while back, some of these people proportionately paid less tax than a cleaner.

Also the bankers who were bailed out getting their bonuses etc.


----------



## The Cueball

kh904 said:


> Sorryi didn't make myself clear (too tired & have a cold, lol).
> I meant the extremely high earners who avoid paying most of the tax that they should pay (off-shore accounts, moving money about etc).
> As it was reported a while back, some of these people proportionately paid less tax than a cleaner.
> 
> Also the bankers who were bailed out getting their bonuses etc.


But sometimes when people do that, it allows them to donate thousands to local childrens hospitals instead of just handing over their hard earned tax....


----------



## kh904

True, but they don't have to donate, isn't it their choice?
Also, do they donate as much as they would have paid in tax?

imo the system should be applied fairly to all, otherwise you'll always end up with a 2 (or more) tier system - although i will have to accept no system is 100$ perfect

Edit: Just re-read your post cueball, i'm thinking you were being sarcastic, lol


----------



## The Cueball

^^ no mate...I was talking about the money I chose to donate to local kids charities / hospitals rather than giving it away to any government to f**k it up and p**s it down the drain.....

:thumb:


----------



## Brazo

I actually do wonder why higher earners should pay more tax than a minimum wage earner, its not as if they use more facilities, quite the opposite, they are less likley to make use of the schools and NHS systems. 

It seems in this country those who put the most in take the least out and those who put the least in take the most out hardly fair.

So imo why should a higher rate tax payer pay for other peoples kids when they don't even get a little 'tax' rebate back for themselves!


----------



## one_question

The Cueball said:


> ^^ no mate...I was talking about the money I chose to donate to local kids charities / hospitals rather than giving it away to any government to f**k it up and p**s it down the drain.....
> 
> :thumb:


Are you an employee or self employed?

Can an employee give money to charity to reduce their basic taxable salary?

I've said before that I have two gripes with this child benefit and one is the fact that someone on £43,875 with two kids will be £33 a week better off than someone on £43,876.

Now there is salary sacrifice - stuff like childcare and buying bikes but there are only so many bikes you can buy. Therefore, if a promotion took you over £44k then could you donate from your pre-tax pay £500 to reduce your income - this is as an employee?

G


----------



## one_question

Brazo said:


> I actually do wonder why higher earners should pay more tax than a minimum wage earner, its not as if they use more facilities, quite the opposite, they are less likley to make use of the schools and NHS systems.
> 
> It seems in this country those who put the most in take the least out and those who put the least in take the most out hardly fair.
> 
> So imo why should a higher rate tax payer pay for other peoples kids when they don't even get a little 'tax' rebate back for themselves!


Someone on the higher tax rate isn't loaded. They have to be well over that rate to be able to afford private schools. They may get health insurance as part of the employment package.

A salary of £43,875 gives a take home pay of £32,281 - not a fantastic amount more than the £26k (TAX FREE) benefit limit that is being proposed for people who live a life of benefits. Out of that £6k extra that a higher tax earner takes home they've got the actual expense of working - fuel, clothes, childcare (for a single parent).

Oh, they actually work too! So, a 40 hour week gets them £120 over someone not working.

A family with a pre-tax income of £30k is losing out big time!

Still, I've got my pride. Pride doesn't pay the bills though:lol:.

G


----------



## big ben

this country sucks ass


----------



## The Cueball

Brazo said:


> I actually do wonder why higher earners should pay more tax than a minimum wage earner, its not as if they use more facilities, quite the opposite, they are less likley to make use of the schools and NHS systems.
> 
> It seems in this country those who put the most in take the least out and those who put the least in take the most out hardly fair.
> 
> So imo why should a higher rate tax payer pay for other peoples kids when they don't even get a little 'tax' rebate back for themselves!


But that is the British way.... the producers have to worry and take care of the non producers....and the people who can't make it by themselves...poor little darlings that they are... 

As previously mentioned by someone else, in the animal kingdom the strongest survive and multiply, in the UK we are changing it to the weakest...

IMO, with every generation there are less high earners, simply because more and more people are seeing getting benefits as a way of life...

:thumb:



one_question said:


> Are you an employee or self employed?
> 
> I've said before that I have two gripes with this child benefit and one is the fact that someone on £43,875 with two kids will be £33 a week better off than someone on £43,876.
> 
> G


I am self employed. 

You have two gripes...1 more than me I guess...:lol:

My gripe is very simple - if you have children YOU should pay for them, not the tax payer.

I still don't see why parents should get any money to help raise their offspring?!?!?!?!

I still don't see why people on "low" income should get their wages topped up??????

And I don't see the need to make a massive deal out of it... people should learn that they reap what they sow... always bl00dy waiting for someone else to fix their problems....handout after handout after handout

:thumb:


----------



## Guest

My gripe is very simple - if you have children YOU should pay for them, not the tax payer

what a staement!!, if everyone decided to pay for only the services they use we will end up in a real mess, the goverment should look a bit closer to home if they want to cut back, why cant the banks pick up the bill, after all they are using our money to payout large bonus payments again this year


----------



## The Cueball

BEKANA said:


> My gripe is very simple - if you have children YOU should pay for them, not the tax payer
> 
> what a staement!!, if everyone decided to pay for only the services they use we will end up in a real mess, the goverment should look a bit closer to home if they want to cut back, why cant the banks pick up the bill, after all they are using our money to payout large bonus payments again this year


Having children is a lifestyle choice, not a service to be used up....

I have a car which needs lots of petrol, same thing, a lifestyle choice, so where is my help from the tax payer?!?!!?

This thread is not about using services, its about people wanting money to cover their choices and decisions (having children) because they can't make it...

:thumb:


----------



## one_question

The Cueball said:


> But that is the British way.... the producers have to worry and take care of the non producers....and the people who can't make it by themselves...poor little darlings that they are...
> 
> As previously mentioned by someone else, in the animal kingdom the strongest survive and multiply, in the UK we are changing it to the weakest...
> 
> *IMO, with every generation there are less high earners, simply because more and more people are seeing getting benefits as a way of life...*
> 
> :thumb:
> 
> I am self employed.
> 
> You have two gripes...1 more than me I guess...:lol:
> 
> My gripe is very simple - if you have children YOU should pay for them, not the tax payer.
> 
> I still don't see why parents should get any money to help raise their offspring?!?!?!?!
> 
> I still don't see why people on "low" income should get their wages topped up??????
> 
> And I don't see the need to make a massive deal out of it... people should learn that they reap what they sow... always bl00dy waiting for someone else to fix their problems....handout after handout after handout
> 
> :thumb:


I sort of agree with some of the above but disagree with other bits. I think that for me to explain what I disagreed with would go over old ground.

However, the bold bit above - I disagree with that. I think that where people do work, then, in general, the current generation earns more than their parents. That is even taking into account inflation. Overall, even taking into account the non-workers, the amount of tax coming into the Government is increasing generation on generation.

I have no figures to back any of that up - just experience of what friends earn compared with what their parents earned.

Another however, I wonder whether this trend of wages increasing will continue (if true) as many of the more professional jobs are now off-shored?

G


----------



## The Cueball

one_question said:


> However, the bold bit above - I disagree with that. I think that where people do work, then, in general, the current generation earns more than their parents. That is even taking into account inflation. Overall, even taking into account the non-workers, the amount of tax coming into the Government is increasing generation on generation.
> 
> G


I think you are comparing the same jobs though...a office worker today will be earning more than an office worker in the 60's...but that is inflation, not because they are better...

The costs of living have also risen, so there is no real positive effect... you could buy a nice house back in the day for a few thousand pounds, try that today! :lol:

What I meant from my statement, is the type of baby factories out there are not exactly the crème de la crème of society, therefore are they going to be producing the types of people that have the calibre to get the high paid jobs in order to pay more tax, to help support the baby factories of the future....

:thumb:


----------



## Guest

its not about wanting money to cover it, its all about what you are due, some people get help with rent,council tax,etc,some people get child benefit,I dont complain about others getting what i dont, its the system and thats the way it is


----------



## The Cueball

BEKANA said:


> its not about wanting money to cover it,* its all about what you are due*, some people get help with rent,council tax,etc,some people get child benefit,I dont complain about others getting what i dont, its the system and thats the way it is


:lol::lol::lol:

You are a real funny person!!

OK, please tell me, without resorting to things like "it's just the way it is", or "it's always been like that" or "just because"...

What makes these people so special that they are due all this money????

Why should someone who can't be arsed working, or someone who has kids knowing they can't afford to bring them up, get tax payer money that could be used to actually make the country better for the people who earn the tax?????

Please, please, give me one good reason why my tax money should be given to a baby making factory with no job (or even someone with a job but doesn't have the money to support their lifestyle choice), rather than, I don't know, let's say fill in some pot holes in the roads that all tax payers use??????? (as a general example of something that would help lots of taxpayers rather than one person)

And, if it's not too much of a stretch, if these people are due the money, please tell me what I am due for supplying the tax in the first place?!?! what do I get, what am I due????

:thumb:


----------



## m4rkie23

The Cueball said:


> what do I get, what am I due????
> 
> :thumb:


Fuel tax is set to go up again soon.


----------



## Guest

The Cueball said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> You are a real funny person!!
> 
> OK, please tell me, without resorting to things like "it's just the way it is", or "it's always been like that" or "just because"...
> 
> What makes these people so special that they are due all this money????
> 
> Why should someone who can't be arsed working, or someone who has kids knowing they can't afford to bring them up, get tax payer money that could be used to actually make the country better for the people who earn the tax?????
> 
> Please, please, give me one good reason why my tax money should be given to a baby making factory with no job (or even someone with a job but doesn't have the money to support their lifestyle choice), rather than, I don't know, let's say fill in some pot holes in the roads that all tax payers use??????? (as a general example of something that would help lots of taxpayers rather than one person)
> 
> And, if it's not too much of a stretch, if these people are due the money, please tell me what I am due for supplying the tax in the first place?!?! what do I get, what am I due????
> 
> :thumb:


I see you are thinking everyone one getting child benefit must be a lay about, wake up!,the only funny guy on here is you, you pay your tax for all services, as an example, would you object to a smoker getting NHS treatment for cancer because its his lifestyle choice to smoke!, past goverments have created the system with people claiming everything they can, I dont agree with it but I dont think you are right to say that anyone with kids should not get any child benefit, the system needs sorting and everyone cant be classed as spongers using benefits as a form of income,as for what you are due for paying tax in the first place---you must use some sort of public services or are just so perfect that you survive all on your own


----------



## cloudnine

m4rkie23 said:


> Fuel tax is set to go up again soon.


Didn't it go up on october 1st?? My local shell just went from 119.9 to 122.9 overnight


----------



## The Cueball

BEKANA said:


> I see you are thinking everyone one getting child benefit must be a lay about, wake up!,the only funny guy on here is you, you pay your tax for all services, as an example, would you object to a smoker getting NHS treatment for cancer because its his lifestyle choice to smoke!, past goverments have created the system with people claiming everything they can, I dont agree with it but I dont think you are right to say that anyone with kids should not get any child benefit, the system needs sorting and everyone cant be classed as spongers using benefits as a form of income,as for what you are due for paying tax in the first place---you must use some sort of public services or are just so perfect that you survive all on your own


I have never once said that everyone on child benefit must be a lay about, I used the term baby factory to describe a certain type of person...

Please do not make up lies about me, or miss quote what I am saying - thanks

Once again you take it off topic by talking about other services, THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC...

:wall::wall::wall:

I can see my questions were too hard for you to understand.....but to answer to your last question, of course I use other services, but as I have mentioned that is nothing to do with this topic...

If you can't make a structured argument for what you are trying to defend or make a response about the correct topic, please don't bother replying to my posts and questions....

:thumb:


----------



## one_question

The Cueball said:


> You have two gripes...1 more than me I guess...:lol:
> 
> My gripe is very simple - if you have children YOU should pay for them, not the tax payer.
> 
> I still don't see why parents should get any money to help raise their offspring?!?!?!?!
> 
> I still don't see why people on "low" income should get their wages topped up??????
> 
> And I don't see the need to make a massive deal out of it... people should learn that they reap what they sow... always bl00dy waiting for someone else to fix their problems....handout after handout after handout
> 
> :thumb:


I never thought that this would happen but...

It's killing me this...

I have thought about the above and I agree in principle with it. (where's the 'faint' emoticon?)

If the benefits system was reduced severely then I wouldn't be grumpy about the unfairness about it.

It should be simple - if you work you should get paid more than someone who doesn't. If you work in a more skilled job or do more hours or whatever so that your worth is more - you should get paid more.

I'm about to pen a letter now to Dave and Nick!

That's after I've finished those jobs that I'm meant to be doing today - and taken those rose tinted glasses off!

G


----------



## Richf

Problem is if you keep taxing those on those kind or earnings you are taxing aspiration , whats the point of working hard and doing well if 

The more you earn the higher tax you pay dont forget £44k earners are on high rate of tax so 40p of every pound you earn goes 
Any investments you make are taxed, any money you save is taxed
Anything you buy is taxed 
Buy a second property and if you rent it or sell it you have to pay a large proportion of any income in tax
Any money you save for your retirement is taxed any income you get off it after retirement is taxed
Any equity in your property is taken if you ever need nursing care 


However if you dont work the Government will pay you to stay at home, give you a house , support you and any kids you have, and support you in your old age whether you have EVER paid any tax at all

Why work at all??


You cant keep hitting the middle classes because they have worked hard and made sacrifices to be able to earn enough money to enjoy a decent standard of living

Increased taxation will not always mean increased income for the country there is a rule of diminishing returns where if you tax people enough they will start to avoid it by investing elsewhere or finding other methods to avoid taxation


----------



## cloudnine

Richf said:


> Problem is if you keep taxing those on those kind or earnings you are taxing aspiration , whats the point of working hard and doing well if
> 
> The more you earn the higher tax you pay dont forget £44k earners are on high rate of tax so 40p of every pound you earn goes
> Any investments you make are taxed, any money you save is taxed
> Anything you buy is taxed
> Buy a second property and if you rent it or sell it you have to pay a large proportion of any income in tax
> Any money you save for your retirement is taxed any income you get off it after retirement is taxed
> Any equity in your property is taken if you ever need nursing care
> 
> However if you dont work the Government will pay you to stay at home, give you a house , support you and any kids you have, and support you in your old age whether you have EVER paid any tax at all
> 
> Why work at all??
> 
> You cant keep hitting the middle classes because they have worked hard and made sacrifices to be able to earn enough money to enjoy a decent standard of living
> 
> Increased taxation will not always mean increased income for the country there is a rule of diminishing returns where if you tax people enough they will start to avoid it by investing elsewhere or finding other methods to avoid taxation


Couldn't agree more.. :thumb:


----------



## m4rkie23

If you've got money you get nothing.
If you've got nothing, you get everything.

We all really know who the fools are. (us hard working folk)


----------



## Guest

The Cueball said:


> I have never once said that everyone on child benefit must be a lay about, I used the term baby factory to describe a certain type of person...
> 
> Please do not make up lies about me, or miss quote what I am saying - thanks
> 
> Once again you take it off topic by talking about other services, THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC...
> 
> :wall::wall::wall:
> 
> I can see my questions were too hard for you to understand.....but to answer to your last question, of course I use other services, but as I have mentioned that is nothing to do with this topic...
> 
> If you can't make a structured argument for what you are trying to defend or make a response about the correct topic, please don't bother replying to my posts and questions....
> 
> :thumb:


I give up, you just cant see it,on another point, your tone in these posts is a bit off and you assume everyone else is an idiot because they dont agree, lets just agree to disagree on this one


----------



## big ben

Richf, you have just hit the nail on the head with a giant hammer bud!

where is the best place to migrate to, seriously


----------



## Richf

big ben said:


> Richf, you have just hit the nail on the head with a giant hammer bud!
> 
> where is the best place to migrate to, seriously


You dont have to migrate but you can choose to spend your money over seas

Another which annoys me is pensioners that retire to other countries ie Spain they still get the winter fuel allowance which is £250 or £400 if you are 80 yrs old and they put back none of that pension money back into the economy in vat , fuel duty, council tax etc etc

You can bet when these people get infirm or skint they come back to the uk for support

I'd drop the pension by 25% if people left the UK to cover that lost income other lifestyle choices are taxed and that all that is.

I'd be targeting those people before i would remove child benefit

There is so much money wasted there should be no need for extra taxation the deficit could be paid for with savings elsewhere


----------



## big ben

i would imagine they waste billions on things like that, disgusting


----------



## Gruffs

The justification for the cut was that it was not fair for the lower earners to pay tax to pay to help the children of those earning so much more than them. I think that's a bloody cheek TBH. When you tax everyone that earns to pay for those that do not. And remember tax is a percentage so is proportional. Benefits are not. 

Earn more, pay more. Put more in, get less out it seems. 

My argument would be that each child is born the same, why should they be worth less to the government because their parents earn more?

But, benefits are a financial cost that we don't want to be paying so reducing them as much as possible is prudent. However, they always seem to be reduced from the top down. 

How much could be saved be reducing the JSA by £2.50 a week?


----------



## big ben

they need to get strict on the scroungers some how, at least it would make it up to those who are going to loose out...

if it was me, i would make anyone who has been on JSA for more than 6 months start earning their salary by working for the council doing community work or something, give them some sort of work on minium wage so they would try harder to fins work. 

Instead of telling the person to apply for everything, give them a crappy job and they can still apply for others, they will soon get their arses in gear and get a better job or be kicked off the JSA for not turning up

the council would have so many employees they would be able to cut down council tax haha. 

also i think the road tax should be used for roads and pot holes, the council dont give a ****


----------



## alan hanson

The system wasn't right before and isn't now and wont be for a long time. It's split good points bad points for the new change peeps favour it on their own circumstances. And whos to blame them, I wouldn't. No one gives a toss in the world today so its becomes even more important to look after yourself, wrong I know but that's how it is. We have a decent family income and are planning on having kids which I will welcome the extra help which i have contributed too. By giving it up so we can spend it on bailing the banks out doesn't make me life any easier.


----------



## Brazo

BEKANA said:


> My gripe is very simple - if you have children YOU should pay for them, not the tax payer
> 
> what a staement!!, *if everyone decided to pay for only the services they use we will end up in a real mess*, the goverment should look a bit closer to home if they want to cut back, why cant the banks pick up the bill, after all they are using our money to payout large bonus payments again this year


Perhaps theres a few services that should go then...

Having to pay out for services that you don't and will never use is well crazy!


----------



## *Das*

bigmc said:


> I think cutting it for those earning over £44K is a great idea, it should be £44K total earning though so you don't get the scenario below.
> "What if there is one wage earner in the household earning £45k - child benefit goes. You live next door to a household with two wage earners on £43k each - they keep the child benefit."


Another good idea spoiled by stupidity. I agree it should be based on total income. Same as the winter fuel payments. This should be means tested as well. My dad was, until he retired, a self employed business man and when he reached 60 he became eligible for winter fuel payments even though he had an income of over £50k a year. Madness.


----------



## Brazo

I suspect the financial 'hassle' with basing it on joint income makes it more cost effective to base it on one.


----------



## Richf

A friend of mine reckons there should only be 1 tax, income tax 

No vat 
No National Insurance 
No council tax 
No capital gains tax 
No "duties" on luxury goods or houses 

Still the same level of taxation though so he reckons that if people actually realised that 80% of what they earn goes back to the Government then there would be rioting in the streets 

Seeings as the child benefit is tax free in real terms removing it is like an extra 2% taxation


----------



## The Cueball

OK, so what one of the do-gooders "my kids should get money 'cause their special" people who are on this thread want to defend this:

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=2410185#post2410185



:lol::lol::lol:

:thumb:


----------



## Deniance

why cant politicians get paid less, less expenses, less mercedes, less bmw, before they cut certain benefits?

we should have a riot, oh wait we cant, its the uk......


----------



## Deniance

oh yeah im on the dole now so am i allowed to comment here lololololololololoo


----------



## Guest

The Cueball said:


> OK, so what one of the do-gooders "my kids should get money 'cause their special" people who are on this thread want to defend this:
> 
> http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=2410185#post2410185
> 
> 
> 
> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> :thumb:


this one cant be defended, but as i said before dont class eveyone the same, people like the one in the newspaper article are using the system to get out as much as they can, other people are working and making ends meet with the help of child allowance so whats the problem with them?, in one of your earlier posts you stated that *anyone* who decides to have children should be able to support them without handouts,in the current climate many people have lost their jobs or took big wage cuts which has put them under great financial pressure, you cant plan for those things so you cant make a rule saying only have kids if you can afford it, things change


----------



## big ben

if you dont like, migrate i say :lol:

nothing we do, say or think will change anything


----------



## The Cueball

BEKANA said:


> this one cant be defended, but as i said before dont class eveyone the same, people like the one in the newspaper article are using the system to get out as much as they can, other people are working and making ends meet with the help of child allowance so whats the problem with them?, in one of your earlier posts you stated that *anyone* who decides to have children should be able to support them without handouts,in the current climate many people have lost their jobs or took big wage cuts which has put them under great financial pressure, you cant plan for those things so you cant make a rule saying only have kids if you can afford it, things change


I have never classed everyone on benefits the same....never once...

Children are a lifestyle decision, one that people should pay themselves...just like my big expensive car....

My whole point, and my only point is that people need to pay for what they want in life and should not expect to get handouts from everyone else to achieve it - just because it's a child doesn't make it fair or right......

OK, I'll tell you what, I'll agree with you about handouts for people who lose their job...

But, will you agree with me that I should be able to get a hand out IF i can't find work to pay for my big expensive car?

Or, are you just going to tell me to sell the car?!?!?!?



:lol:

:thumb:


----------



## Stevoraith

The Cueball said:


> Why should you get any money back because you have a kid, something which I am guessing YOU chose to do?
> 
> :thumb:


Apologies if this has already been said but....

Do you smoke? Ride a motorbike? Make any other 'dangerous' lifestyle choices?

So if you need hospital treatment as a result of any of the above choices will you refuse NHS treatment because it's not fair to expect *MY* takes to pay for it when I don't make any of those choices?

No? Thought not.

**** argument my friend, **** argument.


----------



## Guest

spot on :thumb:sell the car, unfortunately you cant sell your kids, well not in this country anyway:lol:
honestly, I know how you feel, I get pi**** off with the handouts in this country but some people do need it, I agree the example in the last post is not an uncommon one but the goverment has to make a stand on this and put a stop to handouts to those who are working the system and puting nothing back in, I have no problem with anyone who has fell on hard times getting some help, it could be anyone of us one day, as long as they have have put something in and are trying to get back to work or whatever I dont think they should be refused child benefit just because they made a choice to have kids


----------



## Stevoraith

Oh, and just so we are clear, I'm probably in one of the best positions with regards to this new system. My wife and I have a combined income of not far off £80k but as it stands at the moment neither of us are in the higher tax band so we will still recieve child benefit.
(By 2013 I probably will be, so we will probably lose it but I'm talking as it stands)

I think that is a rediculous state of affairs when a family with a single earner who earns £45k will not get it. It should be calulated on joint household income in the same way the child tax credit is.


----------



## The Cueball

Stevoraith said:


> Apologies if this has already been said but....
> 
> Do you smoke? Ride a motorbike? Make any other 'dangerous' lifestyle choices?
> 
> So if you need hospital treatment as a result of any of the above choices will you refuse NHS treatment because it's not fair to expect *MY* takes to pay for it when I don't make any of those choices?
> 
> No? Thought not.
> 
> **** argument my friend, **** argument.


No, NHS treatment is there for all.... it's a completely different thing...this type of benefit (for children) is putting a person first, just because they chose to have a kid, so vital money that could be used for things like the NHS - which supports millions, is getting used to support people who can't afford a lifestyle choice.....

Oh, and I go private, so NO I do not expect to get anything from the NHS...

But I do like getting my bins cleared, why don't you use that one 

:thumb:



Stevoraith said:


> My wife and I have a combined income of not far off £80k but as it stands at the moment neither of us are in the higher tax band so we will still recieve child benefit.


So, let me get this clear, you and your wife earn £80k, but still feel the need to take tax payers money to raise your children?!?!?!?! And, I'm talking p!sh... jeez....:wall:

I'm sure it helps with the BMW payments eh 

:thumb:



BEKANA said:


> spot on :thumb:sell the car, unfortunately you cant sell your kids, well not in this country anyway:lol:
> honestly, I know how you feel, I get pi**** off with the handouts in this country but some people do need it, I agree the example in the last post is not an uncommon one but the goverment has to make a stand on this and put a stop to handouts to those who are working the system and puting nothing back in, I have no problem with anyone who has fell on hard times getting some help, it could be anyone of us one day, as long as they have have put something in and are trying to get back to work or whatever I dont think they should be refused child benefit just because they made a choice to have kids


I know people that may help you with the kid selling issue  :lol:

I agree about the link, just an example of how much this country is going to the dogs, and it will always overshadow people who (IYO) should get the help....

We can disagree on the last part.... 

:lol:

:thumb:


----------



## RandomlySet

Cuey I love you :argie:


----------



## big ben

my mrs is pregnant and im claiming everything i can :lol:

feel free to send me any money cueball


----------



## The Cueball

-Mat- said:


> Cuey I love you :argie:


:argie:

Just watch, you will get abusive PM's now as well.....





big ben said:


> my mrs is pregnant and im claiming everything i can :lol:
> 
> feel free to send me any money cueball


I can't, I need all my money for my life style choices..... :lol:

I am thinking of adopting a few kids though £150k isn't really enough for me...I want money from the tax payers too!!!!!!

:thumb:


----------



## Guest

The Cueball said:


> I have never classed everyone on benefits the same....never once...
> *I think anyone who has children should be able to afford them without the **help of anyone else....*
> 
> just to point out mate, this was your statement, *"anyone who has children"*


----------



## The Cueball

BEKANA said:


> The Cueball said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never classed everyone on benefits the same....never once...
> *I think anyone who has children should be able to afford them without the **help of anyone else....*
> 
> just to point out mate, this was your statement, *"anyone who has children"*
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I did say that...sorry, when I replied to you saying I have never classed anyone the same, I meant the same as the woman in the article...
> 
> I don't class everyone on benefits being the same as her....some people really do need help, she is just a s**k
> 
> But you are right, I do think anyone who has children should be able to afford them...I did say that, and I stand by it, through all the abuse, name calling and threats, I stand by it...
> 
> :thumb:
Click to expand...


----------



## Stevoraith

The Cueball said:


> No, NHS treatment is there for all.... it's a completely different thing...this type of benefit (for children) is putting a person first, just because they chose to have a kid, so vital money that could be used for things like the NHS - which supports millions, is getting used to support people who can't afford a lifestyle choice.....


Child benefit is there for all too- isn't that what you're getting worked up about?
If you have children you'll get it (unless you're a HR tax payer in 2013 obvioulsy ).

NHS is the same- it's there for all who need it.
But should you get free care if you get lung cancer because you've smoked all your days? Or because you fall off your jet ski and break your leg?
Well yes as it happens you should.
I don't complain when people get tax payers money spent on them in this way, even though they could have avoided needing it by choosing a different lifestyle.

Us taxpayers pay into the system and get a little bit back through services we use when we need them. Some people never need the services they've paid for but they're there if they need them.

I actually agree with you that not everyone should get child benefit. I'm not even saying I should get it. My gripe is with the way the rule is being implemented.



The Cueball said:


> So, let me get this clear, you and your wife earn £80k, but still feel the need to take tax payers money to raise your children?!?!?!?! And, I'm talking p!sh... jeez....:wall:
> 
> I'm sure it helps with the BMW payments eh
> 
> :thumb:


Not really 'taking tax payers money' though are we? We pay somewhere in the region of £1500 a month in tax and NI and get £80 back in child benefit. I can sleep easy in my bed at night knowing that I'm not fleecing anyone.

And the BMW is fully paid for thanks- although you've given me an idea- I might use that £80 a month to finance a new one


----------



## The Cueball

Stevoraith said:


> Child benefit is there for all too- isn't that what you're getting worked up about?
> If you have children you'll get it (unless you're a HR tax payer in 2013 obvioulsy ).
> 
> And the BMW is fully paid for thanks- although you've given me an idea- I might use that £80 a month to finance a new one


Well no, not every one can get it, those without kids can't 

Yes, that means me!!

Get some photos of the new beemer up when you get it!



:lol:

:thumb:


----------



## organgrinder

I think this one is really quite simple: it is unfair to put a larger tax burden on a specific section of society. Someone who is a higher rate taxpayer with children is going to make a bigger contribution to the finances of the country than someone who doesn't have children.

If more tax has to be raised then it should be raised by an increase in the overall tax rates so that everyone pays it.

There is plenty of waste in the public sector which can be cut out to make bigger savings. e.g my friend's wife works for the Fire Brigade and twiddles her thumbs for half the day. There are two of them in the office when the job could easily be done by one. She has asked for reduced hours but has been told that they need to keep the headcount up because it means they get a bigger budget and the Senior Officer is on a higher grade because of the size of the workforce!


----------



## big ben

The Cueball said:


> I am thinking of adopting a few kids though £150k isn't really enough for me...I want money from the tax payers too!!!!!!
> 
> :thumb:


dont ever talk to me about money if your on that much :lol:

i wont feel bad taking all the tax payers money for my kid, i will just see it as a payment straight from your pocket


----------



## bunds

Stevoraith said:


> Child benefit is there for all too- isn't that what you're getting worked up about?
> If you have children you'll get it (unless you're a HR tax payer in 2013 obvioulsy ).
> 
> NHS is the same- it's there for all who need it.
> But should you get free care if you get lung cancer because you've smoked all your days? Or because you fall off your jet ski and break your leg?
> Well yes as it happens you should.
> I don't complain when people get tax payers money spent on them in this way, even though they could have avoided needing it by choosing a different lifestyle.
> 
> Us taxpayers pay into the system and get a little bit back through services we use when we need them. Some people never need the services they've paid for but they're there if they need them.
> 
> I actually agree with you that not everyone should get child benefit. I'm not even saying I should get it. My gripe is with the way the rule is being implemented.
> 
> Not really 'taking tax payers money' though are we? We pay somewhere in the region of £1500 a month in tax and NI and get £80 back in child benefit. I can sleep easy in my bed at night knowing that I'm not fleecing anyone.
> 
> And the BMW is fully paid for thanks- although you've given me an idea- I might use that £80 a month to finance a new one


:speechlesuse it for a boob job for the misses:speechles (joke)


----------



## Stevoraith

Now _thats_ a plan!

You know what happens to women when they have kids, seems fair to use child benefit to rectify the situation!


----------



## Guest

The Cueball said:


> BEKANA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I did say that...sorry, when I replied to you saying I have never classed anyone the same, I meant the same as the woman in the article...
> 
> I don't class everyone on benefits being the same as her....some people really do need help, she is just a s**k
> 
> But you are right, I do think anyone who has children should be able to afford them...I did say that, and I stand by it, through all the abuse, name calling and threats, I stand by it...
> 
> :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> just to clear up your last point, I know you dont refer to me regarding the abuse and threats because I did'nt and would'nt do that, off topic, but its just sh** if you cant voice your thoughts without all that crap,I dont agree with you on all of it but there is no need for that level of abuse
Click to expand...


----------



## The Cueball

BEKANA said:


> just to clear up your last point, I know you dont refer to me regarding the abuse and threats because I did'nt and would'nt do that, off topic, but its just sh** if you cant voice your thoughts without all that crap,I dont agree with you on all of it but there is no need for that level of abuse


Sorry, I should have made that clearer... nothing to do with you mate...

Didn't mean to sound as though it did.....

:thumb:


----------



## Fatman Soldier

I agree with some of the stuff Cueball says but i also agree Bekana. 

My missis sister claims child befits, but she did have a very good job, but as a single parent living 300 miles away from family and having to pay for child care its been very hard for her since her partner just got up and left with no words or signs. Turns out he was knocking off another bird. 

Any way she was getting her self into debt paying for child care and stuff, we tried to help her out as much as we could but it was hard being so far away. 

In the end she left her job and claimed benifits but in this instance i pearsonaly thought thats whats its there for as she really did try to keep working for as long as she could. 



But people like the women in the artical at hand in the other thread Sorry but WTF. Now if that ay taking the ****.....

But i do agree its a bit unfair on others who are earning around 40k each and can claim but the pearson next door is earning 45k and thats just in the household, and they cant.


----------



## one_question

Someone from the nightshift left yesterday's Daily Mail on my desk this morning. If it's true what it says, a few more people are in for a shock with child benefit.

The personal allowance of £6,475 is going to be increased to £7,475. The 20% band is then going to decrease from the current £37,400 to pay for the increase in the personal allowance. It stated that the higher tax rate would start at £42,375 from next April - with further cuts predicted.

Here's the link - in the newspaper so must be true!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318370/CHILD-BENEFIT-CUT-Now-230-000-families-hit.html

I've said before and I'll say again that what I'm against is the unfairness of the whole system.

Forget about whether you agree with Child Benefit of not, it is unfair that someone earning just under the higher tax threshold will take home more that someone just over. Fortunately there's salary sacrifice into a pension (or whatever).

Still on child benefit, there's the fact that a couple can have an income of £80k and keep a benefit yet someone on £45k loses it.

Then there's the question of why should someone who has no children pay for other people's. That is more true when it's some person who may be on a very small wage but ticks none of the boxes for any benefit.

And then there are the scroungers who won't work but get full benefits. Take the woman on £29k. This is the take home pay of someone with an pre-tax income of £39k. Even with 5 kids, they'd be classed as well off. Looking at the Daily Mail article (if true), by 2015 they'd be classed as a higher tax payer so would get no child benefit. Child tax credits go down next year and will no doubt continue to drop. In addition though, the scrounger who gets £29k tax free will also get free school meals, free prescriptions and dental work for her. School meals alone would cost the worker £48 a week - unless they take sarnies - but they're not free. Once the scrounger's children are 16 they'll probably be allowed the £30 a week EMA grant for staying at school - something that a family on over £30k won't get.

I hope that the hard line that Osborne and Cameron has taken will continue down the line. I wait to be convinced though.

Apologies for the long post. I'm just annoyed that someone who has never worked can afford foreign holidays and a £2k Christmas budget and a boob job. As it's the taxpayer who's paid for her boobs, maybe they should get a share of them. Mind, with five kids to four fellas - looks like they've been shared out already - probably not to taxpayers though.

G


----------



## rinns

The Cueball said:


> OK, just to take your idea....
> 
> I will pay more than you and your wife pay in tax and ni...
> 
> I don't have any kids though, so what should I get back from the government?????
> 
> Why should you get any money back because you have a kid, something which I am guessing YOU chose to do?
> 
> :thumb:


This dosn't make sense though, they created Child Benifit for all, its to help with the cost of Kids. Kids are the future scientists, teachers, chavs etc and all that ********.

You argument is the same as If I've never been ill then why do I have to contribute to the NHS.


----------



## rinns

Anyway to the important bit.

If me and the wife both get paid 12K each then 30K each in dividends will we still get Child Benifit.

I hope so or I will have to give the wife more housekeeping for all her coffee mornings.


----------



## The Cueball

rinns said:


> This dosn't make sense though, they created Child Benifit for all, its to help with the cost of Kids. Kids are the future scientists, teachers, chavs etc and all that ********.
> 
> You argument is the same as If I've never been ill then why do I have to contribute to the NHS.


No, the NHS is created for all, child benefit is only there for people with children....

If you need help with the costs of kids, don't have them....simple.

Where is the "I want to be child free benefit" getting paid to people like me???????? 

:thumb:



rinns said:


> Anyway to the important bit.
> 
> If me and the wife both get paid 12K each then 30K each in dividends will we still get Child Benifit.
> 
> I hope so or I will have to give the wife more housekeeping for all her coffee mornings.


That's more like it...  

:lol:

:thumb:


----------



## Richf

Why should i pay for people with disabled kids ?? I dont have a disabled kid ??

Why should i pay for those that dont work , i have never claimed benefit myself and have been paying tax my whole working life??

Why should i pay for the UK forces , i didnt believe in going to war 

You could go on and on but thats really not the point

Child benefit is a universal benefit for kids until the are 16 , you either have it or you dont , simple as, its not fair to apply rules this way


----------

