Child Benefit Scrapped For Higher Rate Tax Payers From 2013

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by martyh

I have never read such an obnoxious post in my life ,not for the first time have you bragged about your lifestyle and money .You have been lucky others including myself have had to take cuts in wages to remain in work ,i suggest you get back on planet earth with the rest of us lowly under 30k proles .My earnings have been upto 47k untill 2 years ago now they are down to 26k at best ,my wife works on minimum wage wearas previously she didn't need to how would you suggest anybody just increases their income ,i already do 12-13 hours a day

I'm not talking about you or stereotyping in any way I was quite specific, still if you want to take offence that's your prerogative.

Clearly commenting on paying a ton of rent for a not very large maisonette is 'bragging'. I'm quite sure I've never bragged about my wealth largely because I don't have any worth bragging about.

When you get the opportunity do feel free to read what I wrote again.

I would suggest as an ongoing piece of advice to anyone that if they are not happy with their current income from their job they look for another one, and be prepared to move if necessary. That's what I've always done, nothing to do with 'luck' I just moved to where the work was which is why we've moved 3 times in the past 4 years.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by colin25

The problem with that logic, is that some have kids as a lifestyle choice, helps them get house, benefit,..there are families who only outlook is benefits, and kids who know no other way.

I'm not convinced that is the only, or best way. Far better to reward those who are willing to work..who recognise that to get somewhere you need to work hard.

But, I don't know the ideal solution..perhaps we give benefits for those who have worked for a period of time (put effort in, get it back), and we only support them while they work. And means test it, similar to what is suggested, income over a set amount doesn't qualify .

Not thought it through, but just know that presently it is a perverse incentive to some, and perverse benefit to others.

Not sure I'm invested in the subject to solve it, but I can certainly see the flaws of the present system. At present, universal benefits are unaffordable.

Ok..start the shooting

People do not have children just to get an extra thirteen pounds a week.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I wasn't being judgemental to anyone, simply stating that if you were working you'd be foolish to think you can rely upon a state pension to support you in retirement.

I accept everyones finances are a matter for them, but I can guarantee that there are people on modest incomes that could if they wanted to afford to save, or put in a pension but they choose not to do so, not give up their luxuries now.

But they will expect the state to support them in later life.

I'm not saying everyone, of course there'll be exceptions, but there are people who can afford to save for their future that aren't.

Then you should have said that instead of

Anyone working who is not paying into a personal pension is deluded.

---------- Post added at 21:25 ---------- Previous post was at 21:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Flyboy

People do not have children just to get an extra thirteen pounds a week.

Want to bet on that

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by martyh

Wasn't that originally one of the reasons why family allowance was introduced in the first place about 1946 i think to encourage people to have more kids after the war

Indeed it was. In fact, if the baby boom didn't happen the when it did, we would be in a far worse position than we are in today.

---------- Post added at 21:35 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------

Originally Posted by peanut

A good way of putting things into perspective from the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010...george-osborne

I can't see how the plumber in that example gets five thousand pounds a year in housing benefit, when he has a salary of nearly thirty thousand pounds a year.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Indeed it was. In fact, if the baby boom didn't happen the when it did, we would be in a far worse position than we are in today.

---------- Post added at 21:35 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------



I can't see how the plumber in that example gets five thousand pounds a year in housing benefit, when he has a salary of nearly thirty thousand pounds a year.

That had me puzzled as well if that's the case then i am owed some housing benefit

[peanut]

Originally Posted by martyh

That had me puzzled as well if that's the case then i am owed some housing benefit

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that wondered about that as well. We ain't eligible for HB and we live on far less ourselves.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

It is odd the standards you seem to be applying here. I don't recall these standards being applied to the nearly 180 tax rises in the previous 13 years. Must just be me being inattentive

They were 'red' tax rises though.......

[guyfawkes]

I am sick of seeing hardworking British people and families punished for the mistakes of greedy banks. I have started a facebook group 'I WILL NOT BAIL OUT BANKS' please join and together we can stop this insanity. Banks are responsible for the deficit let them pay for it!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by guyfawkes

I am sick of seeing hardworking British people and families punished for the mistakes of greedy banks. I have started a facebook group 'I WILL NOT BAIL OUT BANKS' please join and together we can stop this insanity. Banks are responsible for the deficit let them pay for it!

Firstly starting a facebook group will make absolutely no difference to the government. If a bail-out is going to help save the economy then they aren't going to change their minds over a little fb page.

Secondly did you join us just to spam your page?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

Then you should have said that instead of

Anyone working who is not paying into a personal pension is deluded

I still stand by it.

---------- Post added at 09:03 ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 ----------

Originally Posted by guyfawkes

I am sick of seeing hardworking British people and families punished for the mistakes of greedy banks. I have started a facebook group 'I WILL NOT BAIL OUT BANKS' please join and together we can stop this insanity. Banks are responsible for the deficit let them pay for it!

Bit late with this aren't you? last I heard we'd already bailed them out.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by guyfawkes

I am sick of seeing hardworking British people and families punished for the mistakes of greedy banks. I have started a facebook group 'I WILL NOT BAIL OUT BANKS' please join and together we can stop this insanity. Banks are responsible for the deficit let them pay for it!

Already bailed out, most of the deficit is due to nothing more interesting than spending too much in public services and welfare and not charging enough in taxes to cover it, and it's extremely likely the tax payer will see a profit on the bailouts.

But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good rant, let alone dealing with the very simple fact that the baby boomers and to a lesser extent my generation have had it too good and been mortgaging our kids to get it.

Ah well now a facebook page has been started to stop something that has already happened i will give dave a call and tell him all is well and he doesn't have to bother with any of those silly austerity measures . We have a lot of people in this country on perfectly liveable wages getting some form of benefit as that article in the guardian a plumber on £30k getting housing benefit thats where one of the biggest problems is.

Benefit was intended for those who by no fault of their own found themselves in financial hardship and needing help to maintain a liveable standard. We have forgotten that and like so many other things it has been used by numerous governments to get votes and keep people happy. If we cut benefit back to what it is truly intended for and dealt with the tax avoidance problem we would have quite a bit more money to help the country out in other ways.

What makes me laugh and again i heard it recently was a man who openly admits he claims about 11k in various benefits whilst earning over £25k (not saying thats a huge amount) complaining about "lazy benefit claimants" and how the country needs to kick them up the backside it isn't just lower social class people taking the system for a ride they are just judged happily by most to not deserve it..

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Ah well now a facebook page has been started to stop something that has already happened i will give dave a call and tell him all is well and he doesn't have to bother with any of those silly austerity measures . We have a lot of people in this country on perfectly liveable wages getting some form of benefit as that article in the guardian a plumber on £30k getting housing benefit thats where one of the biggest problems is.

Benefit was intended for those who by no fault of their own found themselves in financial hardship and needing help to maintain a liveable standard. We have forgotten that and like so many other things it has been used by numerous governments to get votes and keep people happy. If we cut benefit back to what it is truly intended for and dealt with the tax avoidance problem we would have quite a bit more money to help the country out in other ways.

What makes me laugh and again i heard it recently was a man who openly admits he claims about 11k in various benefits whilst earning over £25k (not saying thats a huge amount) complaining about "lazy benefit claimants" and how the country needs to kick them up the backside it isn't just lower social class people taking the system for a ride they are just judged happily by most to not deserve it..

I don't think that article was totally accurate.

[tammac]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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



For the lazy: Households where there is a parent who earns over about £44,000 and is in the 40% tax bracket or higher will no longer receive child benefit from 2013. It will not affect homes where no-one pays the 40% regardless of combined income.

Usual clever stuff from the coalition, thank god we have a team in place that thinks everything through so thoroughly, it's that perfect and no doubt the think tank will be on to a huge bonus.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by tammac

Usual clever stuff from the coalition, thank god we have a team in place that thinks everything through so thoroughly, it's that perfect and no doubt the think tank will be on to a huge bonus.

Would have thought sticking it to top rate tax payers would be quite pleasing to you?