Child Benefit Stopped For High Earners

[Woody1985]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300

Seems fair and sensible to me.

What do you think?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Sounds great in theory, however I would like to see the facts on exactly who will get what.

I don't really need child benefits, so if I'm affected ten fair enough, no biggie, however he goes on to say that it's not fair to tax the lower paid so middle classes can get child benefits, so does that mean the lower classes are geting a tax cut?

Also, I really wish the tories would stop patronising voters by giving the same excuse after every cut

"But given the scale of the debts Labour's left us with, and given they've left us with no plan and we've had to come up with proposals, we think this is fair."

Tell us the facts george, not just that you had to do it because of labour. Most annoying.

[lapsedhibee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300

Seems fair and sensible to me.

What do you think?

Think it may be the thin end of a very thick wedge. Next: restrict the OAP to people with less than a certain amount of capital, which punishes thrifty oldsters.

[Pretty Boy]

Just plain wrong.

It should be a fundemental basic of a welfare state that benefits are universal.

[speedy_gonzales]

Next: restrict the OAP to people with less than a certain amount of capital, which punishes thrifty oldsters.

This is a personal bugbear and fear of mines. We live in a 'social' state and most of the time it works (excuse the pun) but there is a ticking time bomb out there. A large percentage of the population that work and reap the rewards of 'pay', spending as they go which is great for stimulating the economy (arguable) but very little of what they earn is being put aside for THEIR future, not THE future but 'theirs'. Come the time when they no longer work and wish to retire they will turn towards the state. This just puts more pressure, not on just the 'state' but future tax payers.
Obviously if your living hand to mouth then the state should and will be there to help, but why should we bail out those that have no thought or concern for their own future whilst others have gone without today to pay for tomorrow?

[Woody1985]

Sounds great in theory, however I would like to see the facts on exactly who will get what.

I don't really need child benefits, so if I'm affected ten fair enough, no biggie, however he goes on to say that it's not fair to tax the lower paid so middle classes can get child benefits, so does that mean the lower classes are geting a tax cut?

Also, I really wish the tories would stop patronising voters by giving the same excuse after every cut

"But given the scale of the debts Labour's left us with, and given they've left us with no plan and we've had to come up with proposals, we think this is fair."

Tell us the facts george, not just that you had to do it because of labour. Most annoying.

I think what he's saying is that their tax contributions shouldn't be wasted by giving money to people who don't need it, not that they'll get a cut. Ultimately they'll pay the same or more (with other tax rises - VAT/petrol) I reckon.

[CropleyWasGod]

The last time there was such a fundamental change to the CB system, it was from a tax-relief based benefit (ie through the main earner's salary) to a direct payment method (ie to the main carer). That was to stop the situation whereby the wage-earner would get the tax relief and not pass it on to the carer.

This new proposal is moving back to that situation. As I understand it, any household where there is a HR tax payer will have the benefit removed. In other words, the main earner can earn £45k and more, but not give the carer anything.

[speedy_gonzales]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300

Seems fair and sensible to me.

What do you think?
Don't think it is particularly fair. The benefit, like winter cold payments, should either be universal or means tested. Means testing can prove expensive though.

There seems to be a lot of radio debates today, most highlighted examples include the single wage family where the sole earner is above the threshold compare to the dual wage family where both earn just under. Seems a bit unfair that say, the hard working parent earning £44K with a stay at home parent effectively is taxed harder (removing a benefit at a threshold is akin to a tax) where as their lesser paid neighbours where both work can earn nearly twice as much and still get the benefit?!?

[Woody1985]

Don't think it is particularly fair. The benefit, like winter cold payments, should either be universal or means tested. Means testing can prove expensive though.

There seems to be a lot of radio debates today, most highlighted examples include the single wage family where the sole earner is above the threshold compare to the dual wage family where both earn just under. Seems a bit unfair that say, the hard working parent earning £44K with a stay at home parent effectively is taxed harder (removing a benefit at a threshold is akin to a tax) where as their lesser paid neighbours where both work can earn nearly twice as much and still get the benefit?!?

How many people will be in this borderline situation though?

I'm sorry, but my heart can't bleed for someone with an annual wage which is almost double the national average. Kids or not.

[CropleyWasGod]

How many people will be in this borderline situation though?

I'm sorry, but my heart can't bleed for someone with an annual wage which is almost double the national average. Kids or not.

It's the perennial problem with benefits. Just where do you draw the line? That's why most benefits are complicated to the extent that they have a long tail (such as FTC) in order to stop anyone being in that so called "poverty trap".

IDS has said that we will simplify the benefits system, and this is the first step. Any time I hear a politician using the S word, my blood runs cold.

[speedy_gonzales]

I think what he's saying is that their tax contributions shouldn't be wasted by giving money to people who don't need it,
I agree that the tax pot should not be squandered on ventures where there is no net gain, but the first cut to come is against families. Those tax payers without children, or grown-up families may think this is a step forward but what will they say when it is winter fuel allowance, or free bus passes etc etc.

[speedy_gonzales]

How many people will be in this borderline situation though?

I'm sorry, but my heart can't bleed for someone with an annual wage which is almost double the national average. Kids or not.

Regardless, it's not a fair system where 1 family earning £44K gets no child benefit but a family earning £80K does!?!

[Woody1985]

Regardless, it's not a fair system where 1 family earning £44K gets no child benefit but a family earning £80K does!?!

Life's not fair.

If you have kids then you should expect to pay for them.

It's not fair that my mate who is signed on has the money to come out every weekend after I've worked all week. It's not fair that junkies are sitting around in nice council houses.

There's a lot bigger fairness issues in the world than someone earning almost double the national average losing £20 a week.

[speedy_gonzales]

Life's not fair.
Agreed


If you have kids then you should expect to pay for them.
Most definitely agreed


It's not fair that my mate who is signed on has the money to come out every weekend after I've worked all week. It's not fair that junkies are sitting around in nice council houses.
Would argue that they sit in 'nice' houses, but again, agreed.


There's a lot bigger fairness issues in the world than someone earning almost double the national average losing £20 a week.
But is that the point? My argument is that benefits should either be means tested or universal. This proposal is neither.

[Woody1985]

Agreed

Most definitely agreed

Would argue that they sit in 'nice' houses, but again, agreed.

But is that the point? My argument is that benefits should either be means tested or universal. This proposal is neither.

Means testing it would result in less of a saving, I think the idea is largely right. Whilst I agree it's not ideal I think it's the most effective way to do it.

As the man said, the greedy *******s earning the 80k between them per year don't need to claim it. Interestingly, how many households are in the situation where both combined would be on 80k per year and still claim? I'd guess that the majority are unaffected.

We're continually moaning about the rich/poor divide in this country and as soon as something is introduced it's not fair on the relatively rich single parent.

[heretoday]

Universal benefits, a cradle to grave NHS, a safety net - the Tories have longed for years to chip away at all this. They now have the perfect excuse.

Cameron is carrying on what Thatcher started.

[Woody1985]

Universal benefits, a cradle to grave NHS, a safety net - the Tories have longed for years to chip away at all this. They now have the perfect excuse.

Cameron is carrying on what Thatcher started.

So do you think it's right that we give money away to rich members of society when they don't need the money?

As for the winter fuel payments that were mentioned last year, it certainly made a big difference to my grandparents and they'll be hoping it's just as cold this year! My grandad even managed a few pints at the pub with the leftover cash! :greengrin

[col02]

Very unfair move imho in taking money away from people who contribute an awful lot to the welfare fund! What incentive is there now for people to do well for themselves when they just get taxed higher than people who are content being at the end of the low earners?

[Pretty Boy]

Life's not fair.

If you have kids then you should expect to pay for them.

It's not fair that my mate who is signed on has the money to come out every weekend after I've worked all week. It's not fair that junkies are sitting around in nice council houses.

There's a lot bigger fairness issues in the world than someone earning almost double the national average losing £20 a week.

Where about is your mate signing on?

I was unemployed for 2 months recently and it was horrendous. I was getting £103 a fortnight. After i paid a phone bill and my credit card bill i had literally £20 to last me 2 weeks. Horrible experience i wouldn't wish on anybody.

Not doubting what you say about your mate BTW, genuinely just curious as to how he can get out and about on the money the dole pays.

[Woody1985]

So £44k per annum is deemed to be a high earner now? This is an unfair move imho and a kop out by the government in hitting people who put more than their fair share back into the welfare fund that seemingly gives them very little in return. Do high earners get bumped up the NHS waiting lists? Do they get better education than low earners? Do they get any real benefits at all other than what they earn themselves?

The government should hit the people that are happy to be bottom feeders on the welfare state fund and get a bit incentive going in this country to better yourselve and your families lives. Just my opinion but I think people who have accrued assets and have good jobs deserve a bit more respect than ****bags who do nothing.

Are you saying that 44k is not a high earner? Almost double the national average. **** me.

I agree that the ****bags who do nothing should not be able to scrounge and get everything for nothing. However, those that need it and work should perhaps be helped.

So, maybe we could make some rules that you only get benefits if you work but earn less than 44k. Sounds good to everyone? :greengrin

[col02]

Are you saying that 44k is not a high earner? Almost double the national average. **** me.

I agree that the ****bags who do nothing should not be able to scrounge and get everything for nothing. However, those that need it and work should perhaps be helped.

So, maybe we could make some rules that you only get benefits if you work but earn less than 44k. Sounds good to everyone? :greengrin

People who earn £44k per annum do not have this simple life because it is deemed a decent figure of earnings. You are talking if they have families about them having to pay for their upbringing(which costs a lot) as well as then paying them through uni or college(also a lot of money).

Trust me when I say if you are on the side of the fence that deems you middle class you get screwed left, right and centre just because you have a good work ethic to do the best for yourself and your family.

It is now getting to the stage where if you are a family that works hard you get next to nothing out of the government in return for your tax money. Education is struggling due to cutbacks, health care not as good and then your spouse or family even get taxed to the hilt if you worked hard and own your own house that is valued highly when you pass away that happens to be above a certain level of value.

Starting to think people that do nothing but live off the benefits system are not as daft as they may appear! The genuine people who want to work deserve extra income and incentives as do the low income working families but not at the expense of the middle tier families.

[Woody1985]

Where about is your mate signing on?

I was unemployed for 2 months recently and it was horrendous. I was getting £103 a fortnight. After i paid a phone bill and my credit card bill i had literally £20 to last me 2 weeks. Horrible experience i wouldn't wish on anybody.

Not doubting what you say about your mate BTW, genuinely just curious as to how he can get out and about on the money the dole pays.

He lives with parents and has no digs so spends it all going out.

[Woody1985]

People who earn £44k per annum do not have this simple life because it is deemed a decent figure of earnings. You are talking if they have families about them having to pay for their upbringing(which costs a lot) as well as then paying them through uni or college(also a lot of money).

Trust me when I say if you are on the side of the fence that deems you middle class you get screwed left, right and centre just because you have a good work ethic to do the best for yourself and your family.

It is now getting to the stage where if you are a family that works hard you get next to nothing out of the government in return for your tax money. Education is struggling due to cutbacks, health care not as good and then your spouse or family even get taxed to the hilt if you worked hard and own your own house that is valued highly when you pass away that happens to be above a certain level of value.

Starting to think people that do nothing but live off the benefits system are not as daft as they may appear! The genuine people who want to work deserve extra income and incentives as do the low income working families but not at the expense of the middle tier families.

I understand what you're saying about that wage but as a single guy who works for a hell of a lot less than 44k per annum I get sweet FA either from the government so I'm not going to lose any sleep of some others who earn more and now fall into that category. I'd love the government to top up my wages every month but it would defeat the purpose. We need to find a fair balance here and I think that this represents one.

As for paying kids through college or Uni, that's their problem. The kids will and should find a job if that's what they want. You pay for what you get in this world, if you can't afford a private education or your kids don't have the willingness to progress their lives without working as well then that's just tough IMO.

I've just read in the paper that they thought he'd only stop it for those that have kids 16-19. Is that what happened or did it stop from all.

If it is only 16-19 then it's an even lesser issue than it was before.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Lets say for arguments sake I earn 35k a year. Lets say y wife earns 30k a year.

We would still get the benefits yes?

Now a single mum who works hard and gets 44k a year as a manager in the bank, a good salary but the only household income won't get the benefits.

so with a combined income of 65k we get benefits, but the single mum on 44k doesn't????

Sounds bonkers to me. I agree with the basic principle of stopping giving it to people who don't need it, but this is just lazyness by the tories:bitchy:

[bighairyfaeleith]

I understand what you're saying about that wage but as a single guy who works for a hell of a lot less than 44k per annum I get sweet FA either from the government so I'm not going to lose any sleep of some others who earn more and now fall into that category. I'd love the government to top up my wages every month but it would defeat the purpose. We need to find a fair balance here and I think that this represents one.

As for paying kids through college or Uni, that's their problem. The kids will and should find a job if that's what they want. You pay for what you get in this world, if you can't afford a private education or your kids don't have the willingness to progress their lives without working as well then that's just tough IMO.

I've just read in the paper that they thought he'd only stop it for those that have kids 16-19. Is that what happened or did it stop from all.

If it is only 16-19 then it's an even lesser issue than it was before.

do you think it's fair that a couple with a combined income of 75k a year could still get child benefits?

[Woody1985]

No, I don't but depending on the cost to administer the system reduces the reason to do it then it may be the most sensible way to do it av the moment. How many single mums earn more than 44k?

[Leicester Fan]

Not very happy with this in principle but with 85%(including me) not affected and those that are reasonably well off I'm not going to lose sleep about this.

[Speedy]

Lets say for arguments sake I earn 35k a year. Lets say y wife earns 30k a year.

We would still get the benefits yes?

Now a single mum who works hard and gets 44k a year as a manager in the bank, a good salary but the only household income won't get the benefits.

so with a combined income of 65k we get benefits, but the single mum on 44k doesn't????

Sounds bonkers to me. I agree with the basic principle of stopping giving it to people who don't need it, but this is just lazyness by the tories:bitchy:


do you think it's fair that a couple with a combined income of 75k a year could still get child benefits?


No, I don't but depending on the cost to administer the system reduces the reason to do it then it may be the most sensible way to do it av the moment. How many single mums earn more than 44k?

I agree with Woody on this one. It's not about fairness, it's about getting the most for our money.

e.g. Would you rather to give two families, who need the benefits, £20 at a cost of £100 or would you rather give two families, who may or may not need it, £20 at a cost of £50?

[bighairyfaeleith]

I agree with Woody on this one. It's not about fairness, it's about getting the most for our money.

e.g. Would you rather to give two families, who need the benefits, £20 at a cost of £100 or would you rather give two families, who may or may not need it, £20 at a cost of £50?

Yes but how would it cost so much more?

[Lucius Apuleius]

Should be Universally applied or scrapped in my opinion. Personally I would like to see a streamlined welfare state exceedingly simplified and rigidly applied. Will it ever happen? Doubt it very much.

As I grow older I lose some of my pretty radical philosophies and move away from my old far left stance. Strongly believe now that persons who cannot provide a clean urine or blood sample should recieve no job seekers allowance as they are unemployable in any job that I know of. I find it absolutely ridiculous that an elderly couple who have managed to put together a couple of quid for their retirement then get hammered for various thing or do not receive benfits others do who have saved nothing (I reckon this is the way we are heading and the Child Benefit is only the thin edge of the means tested edge).

I do not see the argument in people earning twice the average wage Woody. For it to be the average wage then there must be lots of people earning a hell of a lot more. Bear in mind that the average wage figure is skewed upwards by those who earn millions. High wage earners are mainly there by right of their greater application to education and ability to grow as a person in my opinion. Every society needs these people as much as they need the labourer. How much does a self employed plumber for example earn nowadays relative to the average wage compared to a few years ago? I don't know to be honest but I would reckon it is a lot better than it was. I personally blame the introduction of Comprehensive schools which opened the door to everybody thinking they were academical geniuses when what we needed were people for manufacturing jobs. Now, there is nothing wrong with people wanting to be academical geniuses however they have to know their limitations. Careers with large salaries, way above the national average, can be grown out of non academical jobs.

[hibsbollah]

I expected them to change the age at which you stop being able to claim child benefit for children-which would have penalised all income groups equally, and therefore favoured higher earners in typical Tory fashion-in that respect it was better than I expected.

On the other hand, the fact that they are only considering one partners' income (as per bighairys point below) means they are penalising families with one stay-at-home mum (or dad), which isn't exactly typical Tory territory. Penalising traditional families? The Mail would be having a field day if it was a New Labour policy.

[heretoday]

I don't trust the Tories. They don't give a hoot about ordinary folk.

If it was up to them the Welfare State and the NHS (despite their "pledges") would be done away with altogether and a feudal society reinstated.

Better get used to lining up for The Means Test. That's what it'll be like. Oh yes.

[Betty Boop]

I don't trust the Tories. They don't give a hoot about ordinary folk.

If it was up to them the Welfare State and the NHS (despite their "pledges") would be done away with altogether and a feudal society reinstated.

Better get used to lining up for The Means Test. That's what it'll be like. Oh yes.

:agree: Universal benefits will be toast, wait till they get started on free bus passes, winter fuel allowance, etc., etc. :bitchy:

[bighairyfaeleith]

:agree: Universal benefits will be toast, wait till they get started on free bus passes, winter fuel allowance, etc., etc. :bitchy:

My concern is not with things being taken away, I think thats inevitable, my concern is they are quite clearly rushing into things without thinking them through properly. If this is the "fairest"* way they can think to introduce this change, imagine how they will handle things like you mention above.

They need to slow down and think!!



*As per IDS comment on bbc news this morning, apparently it is the fairest way.

[speedy_gonzales]

Strongly believe now that persons who cannot provide a clean urine or blood sample should recieve no job seekers allowance as they are unemployable in any job that I know of.
:thumbsup:If you ever ran for gubbermint this would be all you needed in your manifesto!
Without impinging on peoples 'rights' to do drugs, if you wanna sit back and (Daily Mail mode) 'Sponge of the state' you should be in a situation where you are ready and available for work, if not, then you are on your own!

[New Corrie]

I don't trust the Tories. They don't give a hoot about ordinary folk.

If it was up to them the Welfare State and the NHS (despite their "pledges") would be done away with altogether and a feudal society reinstated.

Better get used to lining up for The Means Test. That's what it'll be like. Oh yes.

It is up to them, so you reckon we can expect to see the end of the Welfare State and the NHS then?

Disappointed they are punishing working people, thought they would have gone after the bogus scroungers first.

[bighairyfaeleith]

It is up to them, so you reckon we can expect to see the end of the Welfare State and the NHS then?

Disappointed they are punishing working people, thought they would have gone after the bogus scroungers first.

almost up to them, the don't quite have the majority they would like and have to rely on the lib dems, not that seems to be holding them back ofcourse.

[New Corrie]

almost up to them, the don't quite have the majority they would like and have to rely on the lib dems, not that seems to be holding them back ofcourse.

As you say Hairy it's as good as up to them. People need to stop flapping though, it's not as if they are going to do anything draconian, just a bit of tidying up here and there. The Tories are nice people now, don't you know?

[bighairyfaeleith]

As you say Hairy it's as good as up to them. People need to stop flapping though, it's not as if they are going to do anything draconian, just a bit of tidying up here and there. The Tories are nice people now, don't you know?

:faf: aye and petrie just gave me a tenner:greengrin

[heretoday]

It is up to them, so you reckon we can expect to see the end of the Welfare State and the NHS then?

Disappointed they are punishing working people, thought they would have gone after the bogus scroungers first.

I think the Tories would favour an end to universal provision of all kinds. They seem to think that local charities could provide many of our social services. The Big Society? The spectre of Lady Bountiful visiting the poor comes to mind.

I hold no brief for scroungers but I doubt there are as many as the Daily Mail says. And where are the jobs for these folk to take up? The government themselves are engaged in cutting thousands of jobs!

[New Corrie]

I think the Tories would favour an end to universal provision of all kinds. They seem to think that local charities could provide many of our social services. The Big Society? The spectre of Lady Bountiful visiting the poor comes to mind.

I hold no brief for scroungers but I doubt there are as many as the Daily Mail says. And where are the jobs for these folk to take up? The government themselves are engaged in cutting thousands of jobs!

You would need to ask our hard working Polish community, they never seem to have a problem finding work. They arrive here with little, deal with the language barrier, the hostilities etc. Strange how they seem to manage alright.

[Woody1985]

You would need to ask our hard working Polish community, they never seem to have a problem finding work. They arrive here with little, deal with the language barrier, the hostilities etc. Strange how they seem to manage alright.

Like the Polish people who were in the EEN last week living by a burn in a tent down in Canonmills because they can't find/won't look for work and are living on benefits (IIRC one has been for 18 months)?

I suspect and know of instances where Polish workers get paid far less than you're average Scottish worker meaning that they're easier to employ, will do all the ****ty stuff they're asked to do and will still feel like they're being done a favour.

The last time I read up on the Polish workers was their average wage per annum in Poland was £2,500 so they were getting paid better even if it is crap wages in our terms. The Polish workers I've spoke to out and about always seem to share flats with a few people as well meaning it's not your average British workers who wants/can afford their own home.

I also read there was a massive skills shortage back in Poland because they'd all moved away! And I recall there being cheaper than Polish foreign workers (Chinese or Albanian I think) who moved into Poland to fill the gap and when a lot of the Poles wanted to move back (as a lot of them did/do) meant they couldn't get work as they'd been undercut! The irony!

Add to the fact there's a lot of lazy, scrounging ****ers around. :greengrin

So please don't just put all of the people on the dole/out of work into the category 'Well the Poles will do it so they must be lazy'. There's other factors why Poles will work and do they crappy jobs.

Does anyone miss the fact that you used to get a lot of rough middle aged women from run down areas working in cafes and the like who'd have a bit of a laugh or do we prefer our blonde Poles. :greengrin

[New Corrie]

Like the Polish people who were in the EEN last week living by a burn in a tent down in Canonmills because they can't find/won't look for work and are living on benefits (IIRC one has been for 18 months)?

I suspect and know of instances where Polish workers get paid far less than you're average Scottish worker meaning that they're easier to employ, will do all the ****ty stuff they're asked to do and will still feel like they're being done a favour.

The last time I read up on the Polish workers was their average wage per annum in Poland was £2,500 so they were getting paid better even if it is crap wages in our terms. The Polish workers I've spoke to out and about always seem to share flats with a few people as well meaning it's not your average British workers who wants/can afford their own home.

I also read there was a massive skills shortage back in Poland because they'd all moved away! And I recall there being cheaper than Polish foreign workers (Chinese or Albanian I think) who moved into Poland to fill the gap and when a lot of the Poles wanted to move back (as a lot of them did/do) meant they couldn't get work as they'd been undercut! The irony!

Add to the fact there's a lot of lazy, scrounging ****ers around. :greengrin

So please don't just put all of the people on the dole/out of work into the category 'Well the Poles will do it so they must be lazy'. There's other factors why Poles will work and do they crappy jobs.

Does anyone miss the fact that you used to get a lot of rough middle aged women from run down areas working in cafes and the like who'd have a bit of a laugh or do we prefer our blonde Poles. :greengrin


I'll opt for the latter please:wink:

[LiverpoolHibs]

You would need to ask our hard working Polish community, they never seem to have a problem finding work. They arrive here with little, deal with the language barrier, the hostilities etc. Strange how they seem to manage alright.

Because, for the most part, economic migrants find employment in jobs that simply would not exist without the availability of cheap labour from Europe. That is to say, 'native' people could not do those jobs even if they wanted to as they wouldn't exist if they could do them. If you see what I mean...

There's an entire sector of the economy that can only really function due to the free movement of labour (which is also pretty horribly exploitative) provided by the E.U.

On topic, good article on Liberal Conspiracy (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/10/04/the-attack-on-child-benefit-is-an-attack-on-women/). The plan really doesn't make any sort of sense whatsoever.

Also, a very useful Fabian Society report (http://www.fabians.org.uk/images/stories/pdfs/The_Solidarity_Society_Exec_Summary.pdf) that looks at the importance of universality to proper provision of public services.

[lyonhibs]

Is it any surprise that the Tories are focusing this policy on single parents. Yes, single parents earning a decent wage (if you're running a house and financially responsible for a couple of kids, £40 odd thousand is NOT a ridiculous sum of money, to say otherwise - taking into account the circumstances I mention - would indicate that you know as much about the price of milk as Prince Charles), but for parents who earn just under the threshold, they get to have a near-double household income vs the single parent, AND get to keep their child benefits.

The Tories swinging the axe, and missing the point - yet again.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Is it any surprise that the Tories are focusing this policy on single parents. Yes, single parents earning a decent wage (if you're running a house and financially responsible for a couple of kids, £40 odd thousand is NOT a ridiculous sum of money, to say otherwise - taking into account the circumstances I mention - would indicate that you know as much about the price of milk as Prince Charles), but for parents who earn just under the threshold, they get to have a near-double household income vs the single parent, AND get to keep their child benefits.

The Tories swinging the axe, and missing the point - yet again.

Exactamundo!

[Leicester Fan]

Is it any surprise that the Tories are focusing this policy on single parents. .

What a ridiculous thing to say.

[Westie1875]

No, I don't but depending on the cost to administer the system reduces the reason to do it then it may be the most sensible way to do it av the moment. How many single mums earn more than 44k?

Probably lots (single dads too), £44k may sound like a lot of money but it isn't really that much for a single parent with no benefits - roughly £2600 per month after deductions. Say your mortgage costs £900 a month (probably more on a family home in Edinburgh), council tax of £120 - £180, other bills such as gas, electricity, tv licence, phone, insurance, food etc. plus clothing for growing kids all adds up. There isn't a lot left and child benefit makes a difference to someone like that.

If they must stop it being universal then not means testing it is wrong IMO.

[lyonhibs]

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Apologies. Ok, they aren't actually actively targetting parents who are on their own, but the way this efficiency measure is laid out does give rise to a possible scenario whereby a couple with dual income keep their child benefits, but a single parent earning less loses theirs.

Not exactly fair is it, but I guess there have to be some losers in these austere times.

[bighairyfaeleith]

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Not really. Cameron is now hinting he will give tax cuts to married couples. So a couple will get a tax cut and get to keep there child benefits. Win win for me but still not right!

[heretoday]

Would it not have been more sensitive to cut Child Benefit by a pound or two a week?

Then we could all say we were "in it together" and the universal aspect of this main plank of welfare would have been preserved.

I am not sure how the totals thus saved would compare with the current proposal which sounds to me like something dreamed up in a 5-minute brainstorming session at Tory Central.

[Woody1985]

Probably lots (single dads too), £44k may sound like a lot of money but it isn't really that much for a single parent with no benefits - roughly £2600 per month after deductions. Say your mortgage costs £900 a month (probably more on a family home in Edinburgh), council tax of £120 - £180, other bills such as gas, electricity, tv licence, phone, insurance, food etc. plus clothing for growing kids all adds up. There isn't a lot left and child benefit makes a difference to someone like that.

If they must stop it being universal then not means testing it is wrong IMO.

They're still not going to be the most hardup people in the world. I understand where people are coming from but if you're basing your dependency to live on state money then you should have been more savvy.

A £900 pcm mortgage on 5% (rates are lower at the moment and generally so will mortgage payments) would mean the individual on that kind of salary would have had to borrow 4 times their income (and more if they got a silly enough lender/customer) and have no other debt at the time so I think that would have been a little silly for a single parent with 2 kids to take that kind of risk. Obviously people find themselves in difficult circumstances through no fault of there own but they'll have to adapt.

As you've said, it's roughly two average incomes, there will be millions of homes with two parent incomes that don't make what the hypothetical individual does.

Fair enough if someone comes out and states this affects millions of people and those on 44k per annum are suddenly falling into poverty or even close to it then I might change my mind.

Where's all the sympathy for the single, 18k a year office worker with two kids who get their £1,800? How do they survive?

And Lyon, you're right, I don't know how much a pint of milk is because I tend to buy two litres which tends to range from 1.19 - 1.59 in my local shop. The lower is generally when he wants to get the customers back from the papershop next door. :greengrin

[Woody1985]

Would it not have been more sensitive to cut Child Benefit by a pound or two a week?

Then we could all say we were "in it together" and the universal aspect of this main plank of welfare would have been preserved.

I am not sure how the totals thus saved would compare with the current proposal which sounds to me like something dreamed up in a 5-minute brainstorming session at Tory Central.

Maybe so but you'd all have been going crazy that the poor were the losers again because it represents a larger % of their income than rich families!!!!!

I didn't experience the last Tories and still have my reservations about them but FFS, Labour have contributed to screwing this country big time.

The Tories will inevitably use the situation to get closer to their ideals and we should keep a check on that but they're taking from the relatively better off and that's what a lot of people want. And those that do earn the 80k per annum between them don't have to apply for child benefit. Maybe we should start givign them grief for being greedy *******s!

[bighairyfaeleith]

They're still not going to be the most hardup people in the world. I understand where people are coming from but if you're basing your dependency to live on state money then you should have been more savvy.

A £900 pcm mortgage on 5% (rates are lower at the moment and generally so will mortgage payments) would mean the individual on that kind of salary would have had to borrow 4 times their income (and more if they got a silly enough lender/customer) and have no other debt at the time so I think that would have been a little silly for a single parent with 2 kids to take that kind of risk. Obviously people find themselves in difficult circumstances through no fault of there own but they'll have to adapt.

As you've said, it's roughly two average incomes, there will be millions of homes with two parent incomes that don't make what the hypothetical individual does.

Fair enough if someone comes out and states this affects millions of people and those on 44k per annum are suddenly falling into poverty or even close to it then I might change my mind.

Where's all the sympathy for the single, 18k a year office worker with two kids who get their £1,800? How do they survive?

And Lyon, you're right, I don't know how much a pint of milk is because I tend to buy two litres which tends to range from 1.19 - 1.59 in my local shop. The lower is generally when he wants to get the customers back from the papershop next door. :greengrin

More often than not the single person with two kids who could only earn 18k won't work, certainly not for the first five years of the kids lives as they could be paying around £80 a day for childcare for both kids. That is around £19,200 a year based on working 5 days a week for 48 weeks a year. They may try and go part time but even then it's difficult to make the sums add up.

Anyway as I said before I would bring the barrier down lower, the difference is I would hit the total income of houses rather than attack single parents, and I certainly wouldn't take from the single parents and then give it all back to the married couples who may not even have kids.

At best it's incompetence by George Osbourne, at worst it's outright discrimination.

what really worries me though is that if they have managed to cock up 1bn of savings so badly, can you imagine the mess when they do the next 93bn of savings in two weeks time?

Scary ****!!!

[bighairyfaeleith]

Maybe so but you'd all have been going crazy that the poor were the losers again because it represents a larger % of their income than rich families!!!!!

I didn't experience the last Tories and still have my reservations about them but FFS, Labour have contributed to screwing this country big time.

The Tories will inevitably use the situation to get closer to their ideals and we should keep a check on that but they're taking from the relatively better off and that's what a lot of people want. And those that do earn the 80k per annum between them don't have to apply for child benefit. Maybe we should start givign them grief for being greedy *******s!

lol just because labour contributed doesn't mean the tories should be allowed to do whatever they want though. The tories are giving very few facts to back up there arguments other than "labour created this mess so we have to cut xxx"

They may well have to make the cut but surely they can put forward a more sensible balanced argument, or are we scots just too thick to understand*

Your right though about trying to get people with high household incomes not to take there child benefit and any other benefits they don't need, for too long we have been thinking that it is our entitlement so we just take it,regardless of whether we actually need it. But i don't expect the country as a whole to develop a social conscience anytime soon in this regard.


*quote from a tory in glasgow this week about why we don't vote conservative

[johnbc70]

There will be cases when a pay rise in their job will actually make someone worse off because of this stupid rule.

If you take the example of a Dad, Mum and 3 kids where the Dad earns just under the £44K threshold and he works hard to support his family. The Mum has a part time job earning about £6K a year. Through the Dad's hard work over the year he has been awared a £1K p.a. pay rise. If he accepts this pay rise it takes him over the benefit threshold and his family lose all child benefits which are worth more than £1K p.a. for 3 kids. Why on earth would he accept this pay rise when it makes his family worse off?

Crazy to think there will be some people not wanting a pay rise because they will be worse off, on this basis and the fact that the family next door also have 3 kids and the Dad earns £42K and the Mum also earns £42K and they KEEP their benfits for their 3 children the new rules are just stupid.

[Mibbes Aye]

Maybe so but you'd all have been going crazy that the poor were the losers again because it represents a larger % of their income than rich families!!!!!

I didn't experience the last Tories and still have my reservations about them but FFS, Labour have contributed to screwing this country big time.

The Tories will inevitably use the situation to get closer to their ideals and we should keep a check on that but they're taking from the relatively better off and that's what a lot of people want. And those that do earn the 80k per annum between them don't have to apply for child benefit. Maybe we should start givign them grief for being greedy *******s!

Which is why their Budget hit the poorest ten times harder than the richest???

There's a long-game to all this as well. Take away a universal benefit from one element (the better-off) and it won't be long before they're protesting about having to pay taxes so that 'spongers' can benefit. Makes it then easier to come down harder on those who genuinely need the safeguard that these benefits bring.

Consider the difference between universal and prioritised services.

Very rarely does anyone say that unemployed people shouldn't get treatment from the NHS, because we all benefit from the NHS.

It's a different story with something like council housing, or housing benefit though. The better-off don't receive such things and the consequence is that those who do use them tend to be portrayed very negatively.

There's the odd exception, as the Tories have shown this week, with exemptions for people with disabilities,, war widows etc.

It's classic Tory "the deserving poor and the undeserving poor" stuff, designed to create division amongst those at the bottom of the ladder while the Conservatives merrily continue with policies that hit the weakest in our society the hardest.

[Beefster]

Just plain wrong.

It should be a fundemental basic of a welfare state that benefits are universal.

Yeah, why shouldn't I be whacked for tax so that households earning £70k and up can take thousands of pounds from the state for choosing to have kids?

The coalition are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Folk have been moaning on here about public sector job cuts, pension cuts, poor folk getting hammered and on and on. Yet when they cut benefits from folk who definitely don't need state help and the money saved will mean that services somewhere else won't be cut, the same folk continue to whinge.

[Mibbes Aye]

Yeah, why shouldn't I be whacked for tax so that households earning £70k and up can take thousands of pounds from the state for choosing to have kids?

The coalition are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Folk have been moaning on here about public sector job cuts, pension cuts, poor folk getting hammered and on and on. Yet when they cut benefits from folk who definitely don't need state help and the money saved will mean that services somewhere else won't be cut, the same folk continue to whinge.

Welcome to government :greengrin (even if it is a government without a genuine mandate).

I see the talk is that Osborne will extend the Tory tax break that's only going to be available to married couples and give it to the higher-rate paying ones as well.

It's a very crude attempt to buy acquiescence for his taking away of their child benefit.

Of course by doing that, he cancels out any saving that was made in the first place!!

So we have no actual gain to the public finances but we do have the removal of universal benefits and we have married couples being treated more favourably than single parents or unmarried couples, in one fell swoop that incredibly seems to combine artifice with utter incompetence.

You couldn't make it up. You don't need to. It's the same old Tory ideological assault disguised as being in the country's interest and it's the weakest who pay the price.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Yeah, why shouldn't I be whacked for tax so that households earning £70k and up can take thousands of pounds from the state for choosing to have kids?

The coalition are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Folk have been moaning on here about public sector job cuts, pension cuts, poor folk getting hammered and on and on. Yet when they cut benefits from folk who definitely don't need state help and the money saved will mean that services somewhere else won't be cut, the same folk continue to whinge.

TBH I think most folks would have accepted it if they had made the cuts fair and judging it on the household as opposed to the individual therefore discriminating against single parents.

Your right about people on 70k shouldn't get it though, I would cut it down further than they have and no family with a combined income of over 45k would get anything. If there is only one of you then I would set the level at 30k.

[Twa Cairpets]

Probably lots (single dads too), £44k may sound like a lot of money but it isn't really that much for a single parent with no benefits - roughly £2600 per month after deductions. Say your mortgage costs £900 a month (probably more on a family home in Edinburgh), council tax of £120 - £180, other bills such as gas, electricity, tv licence, phone, insurance, food etc. plus clothing for growing kids all adds up. There isn't a lot left and child benefit makes a difference to someone like that.

If they must stop it being universal then not means testing it is wrong IMO.

I'm not sure what the definition of "lots" is, but the statistics suggests its not that many: Half of lone parent families in low income (http://www.poverty.org.uk/05/index.shtml).

Also only 10% of the population earn in excess of £971 per week according to the Office of National Statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285) which is just a wee bit over the nominal £44k pa being discussed.

I think it would be fair to take these two pieces of data and conclude that there are not "lots"" of single parents in this bracket - some will be of course, but I dont think you can base any argument on a throwaway "lots".

[Woody70x2]

The proposed system is totally unfair... it needs to be means tested if it is going to be fair.

However, why not simply get rid of child benefit completely? Why should anyone receive it? What is it designed to pay for? If you don't have the money you shouldn't be having kids? I wonder what impact this would have on society?

[CropleyWasGod]

The proposed system is totally unfair... it needs to be means tested if it is going to be fair.

However, why not simply get rid of child benefit completely? Why should anyone receive it? What is it designed to pay for? If you don't have the money you shouldn't be having kids? I wonder what impact this would have on society?

You're probably paying Devil's Advocate, I know.... but that sounds like the slippery slope to "only rich people should have kids". Make parenthood means-tested.... there's a thought.:rolleyes:

[Beefster]

TBH I think most folks would have accepted it if they had made the cuts fair and judging it on the household as opposed to the individual therefore discriminating against single parents.

Your right about people on 70k shouldn't get it though, I would cut it down further than they have and no family with a combined income of over 45k would get anything. If there is only one of you then I would set the level at 30k.

It doesn't discriminate against single parents. It applies to any household where an individual earns £44k+. Most of the folk affected will be married/living with a partner. I've heard parents complaining about it discriminating against 'stay-at-home' parents too - ignoring the fact that their husband/wife earns over £44k.

You're right though - it should be on total household income. I suspect that, by the time, the change is implemented, it will be. Either way, my missus isn't happy about it!

[jonty]

Interesting.
How much longer before those on the "higher" tax bracket pay into society and yet get nothing back?

Isn't it 'fair' to have a standard level of tax?

Tax higher on bonuses, not basic pay?

Or, as mentioned above, do away with child benefit and drop the tax a few % so that it leaves your average family no worse off. It wont stop people having kids.

[Woody70x2]

You're probably paying Devil's Advocate, I know.... but that sounds like the slippery slope to "only rich people should have kids". Make parenthood means-tested.... there's a thought.:rolleyes:

Yes, I was simply playing Devil's Advocate. There are a number of opinions on here that are short sighted regarding those earning over £44k - stating they should not receive child benefit. They don't see the issue of those with maybe two earners under the threshold thrive... anyway, it is not going to happen as outlined.

[Woody1985]

Yes, I was simply playing Devil's Advocate. There are a number of opinions on here that are short sighted regarding those earning over £44k - stating they should not receive child benefit. They don't see the issue of those with maybe two earners under the threshold thrive... anyway, it is not going to happen as outlined.

Assuming this one is for me, I'm not short sighted and don't believe that those with combined earnings should get it.

There is probably a better way of implementing the system but my heart won't bleed for those on high salaries losing child benefit. TC has provided some pretty good stats on those that earn more than 44k per year and a lot less of those will be single parents on the borderline. Single parents may also have the option of receiving funds via the CSA if that is viable so again, the numbers drop further. All this 'outrage' over a small proportion of the population is unnecessary IMO.

How does the application work for married couples sharing a home? Do they both have to put their details on the form? If so, they should ideally just reject all applicants with the combined salary is more than 44k. If people claim they're not married/sharing a home then charge them with benefit fraud when caught.

The issue the tories have is that they're all for family union and marriage and won't go against those voters if you ask me. Again, in the grand scheme of things, I reckon the numbers are tiny on who will be borderline. In all walks of life there are winners and losers. That's the way it is.

FWIW, I don't believe that the rich should pay for the kids of those who can't afford them without state help. They could look at other forms of tax cuts for them IMO. However, that would cause more 'outrage' as it would be giving cuts to the rich 'who got us into this mess'.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Assuming this one is for me, I'm not short sighted and don't believe that those with combined earnings should get it.

There is probably a better way of implementing the system but my heart won't bleed for those on high salaries losing child benefit. TC has provided some pretty good stats on those that earn more than 44k per year and a lot less of those will be single parents on the borderline. Single parents may also have the option of receiving funds via the CSA if that is viable so again, the numbers drop further. All this 'outrage' over a small proportion of the population is unnecessary IMO.

How does the application work for married couples sharing a home? Do they both have to put their details on the form? If so, they should ideally just reject all applicants with the combined salary is more than 44k. If people claim they're not married/sharing a home then charge them with benefit fraud when caught.

The issue the tories have is that they're all for family union and marriage and won't go against those voters if you ask me. Again, in the grand scheme of things, I reckon the numbers are tiny on who will be borderline. In all walks of life there are winners and losers. That's the way it is.

FWIW, I don't believe that the rich should pay for the kids of those who can't afford them without state help. They could look at other forms of tax cuts for them IMO. However, that would cause more 'outrage' as it would be giving cuts to the rich 'who got us into this mess'.

You can't say sod them just because theres not that many of them. Thats not "FAIR" as the tories like to keep saying!!

You can't come out and say your cuts are going to be fair to all and then make them not fair. Thats basically just lying to the public.

[Woody1985]

I think someone has said earlier, that's government for you!

I never voted for them but I expected lies to come to the fore post election regardless of who won.

On this particular instance I don't think it's going to have a massive negative effect.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I think someone has said earlier, that's government for you!

I never voted for them but I expected lies to come to the fore post election regardless of who won.

On this particular instance I don't think it's going to have a massive negative effect.

no your right it won't have a massive effect, either on votes or on a large group of people, I just like to pick on the tories at each and every opportunity :greengrin

[Woody1985]

no your right it won't have a massive effect, either on votes or on a large group of people, I just like to pick on the tories at each and every opportunity :greengrin

I see my declaration that I never voted for them anyway brought a quick end to this (although we probably exhausted the discussion anyway!). :greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

I see my declaration that I never voted for them anyway brought a quick end to this (although we probably exhausted the discussion anyway!). :greengrin

:greengrin yeah no fun if your not a tory, I think it has been exhausted though!

[Leicester Fan]

All this sympathy for people earning over £44k. I wonder if you'll all be delighted if the coalition gives them a tax cut.

[bighairyfaeleith]

All this sympathy for people earning over £44k. I wonder if you'll all be delighted if the coalition gives them a tax cut.

nope be delighted if they implemented a policy fairly though.

[jonty]

(IMO) fair is paying for what you use - and I can't see that happening any time ever.
So drop tax, drop NI and charge for everything :greengrin A bit radical, can't really be introduced over a couple of months but fair.

Get a decent salary, get penalised - thats what its coming down to.

Council tax gets my goat. the tories claim it's doubled under labour.
Thats as maybe, but I can't see them cutting it in half. So why do they go on about it?
Instead the freeze on council tax will be lifted. joy.
I'd emigrate but everywhere else is just as bad :greengrin

[Lucius Apuleius]

(IMO) fair is paying for what you use - and I can't see that happening any time ever.
So drop tax, drop NI and charge for everything :greengrin A bit radical, can't really be introduced over a couple of months but fair.

Get a decent salary, get penalised - thats what its coming down to.

Council tax gets my goat. the tories claim it's doubled under labour.
Thats as maybe, but I can't see them cutting it in half. So why do they go on about it?
Instead the freeze on council tax will be lifted. joy.
I'd emigrate but everywhere else is just as bad :greengrin

At the time, and probably even to this day, I firmly believed that this was the purpose behind Thatcher's poll tax. get people so upset about it that ALL council services were farmed out to the private sector and you paid for what you used. Pretty hard for it to work for polis and firepersons though. Your last sentence kinda sums it all up. Everywhere in the world I have worked the locals thought they had it bad and thought the UK is the land of milk and honey.

[IWasThere2016]

CB is a benefit I've never liked despite having 3 kids - and with one still eligible until the change in 2013 (by which point he'll be 13). It should be scrapped IMHO. Anyone who thinks £1,800 covers the costs of two kids per annum is deluded.

And if it was scrapped, the Tories - if wishing to be fair - could have instead raised the tax codes thus proportionately helping the lower paid. That would be 'fairer'.

The coalition is doing what it has to - the first change has been handled very poorly IMHO - and it doesn't bode well.

Finally, if the current arrangements aren't as fair as the proposed - why is it taking 3 years to be implemented?

[jonty]

At the time, and probably even to this day, I firmly believed that this was the purpose behind Thatcher's poll tax. get people so upset about it that ALL council services were farmed out to the private sector and you paid for what you used. Pretty hard for it to work for polis and firepersons though. Your last sentence kinda sums it all up. Everywhere in the world I have worked the locals thought they had it bad and thought the UK is the land of milk and honey.
Absolutely - if it was easy we wouldnt be discussing it :greengrin

Council tax - why should the value or number of windows on my house/flat detmine how much I pay the council? does paying more mean bins get emptied more regularly? or more quieter?
It doesnt effect how much I pay for gas or electricity, phone calls.

If the council chooses not to adopt a road and it's marked private - they wont grit it. So residents pay the same council tax, get no grit and can be arested for 'stealing' grit from other bins.

bloody bonkers.

friday rant over :greengrin

[SlickShoes]

Council tax is the one that really gets on my nerves.

I live in the G61 postcode but i am about 50m away from bearsden, i fall within Glasgow City Council, thus i pay £260 a month which is just insane. If i were 50m up the road i would pay £190 a month.

I cant wait to stop renting and buy my own place in an area with less hideous council tax prices.