Child Benefit to be scrapped for higher earners

1 to 20 of 334 messages
04/10/2010 at 09:00

George = Gordon?

The tories have turned red innit?

04/10/2010 at 09:02
all I will say is - good but why wait?
04/10/2010 at 09:04
Its paying for my kids' tuition fees - that's why wait.
04/10/2010 at 09:06
Really can't argue with that...
04/10/2010 at 09:15
Better make the most of it before they take mine away then! 
04/10/2010 at 09:31

Well that's going to cost me about £45 a week - just what I wanted.     

04/10/2010 at 09:35
Sound fair enough to me
04/10/2010 at 09:49

It will affect our income next year but I can't really argue with it. 

04/10/2010 at 10:10

Hmm.  Sounds fair, until you consider that a family with one parent earning £45k will lose it, but a family with 2 parents earning £44k each won't.   But to implement it fairly would probably cost more than it saves.

Can't really argue with the theory, but............

04/10/2010 at 10:30
Fair though I don't think £45 is 'high' in terms of earnings. Having said that I'm not an advocate of child benifit even though it's what fed me when I was a teen with only one parent working (and one with a terminal illness) - soooo
04/10/2010 at 10:59

I seem to be in a minority but I don't think it's fair simply because - as has been mentioned - it is using individual income when the relevant thing is household income.    Why is a family with 5 kids and a household income of 45k losing about £70 a week whereas it's possible to be on 80k and lose nothing ?

People may say you should pay for your own kids - you had them.   I can see the logic but at the same time the state is imposing quite a few conditions on parents regarding how they bring up kids so a bit of  a subsidy on fulfilling that doesn't seem unfair to me.   I don't agree with school uniform, I don't agree with having to pay for classroom materials, after school football, school music lessons etc - but I have to.  This is all stuff that when I was a kid would have been free.   

04/10/2010 at 11:31
popsider wrote (see)
People may say you should pay for your own kids - you had them.   I can see the logic but at the same time the state is imposing quite a few conditions on parents regarding how they bring up kids so a bit of  a subsidy on fulfilling that doesn't seem unfair to me.   I don't agree with school uniform, I don't agree with having to pay for classroom materials, after school football, school music lessons etc - but I have to.  This is all stuff that when I was a kid would have been free.   


Thats the cost of having children today though surely? Why should the state subsidise people having kids? Its not the government that forces school uniform/football/music lessons......if you want your children to take part then you have to pay for it.

04/10/2010 at 11:36
pops - the only fair system is to scrap child benefit totally irrespective of income.

you want kids - you pay.
you don't want kids - you don't subsidise others through tax to have them

that's the only fair system in my mind
04/10/2010 at 11:38
Taking it from those that can afford it = Fair enough.

But why continue to give it to women who can't (or wont) seem to stop having kids.
IMO child benefit should ONLY be paid for the 1st and 2nd child, after that pay for them yourselves.
04/10/2010 at 11:39
fat buddha wrote (see)
pops - the only fair system is to scrap child benefit totally irrespective of income. you want kids - you pay. you don't want kids - you don't subsidise others through tax to have them that's the only fair system in my mind
Can't disagree with that.
04/10/2010 at 11:39
sounds fair enough to me. God-never thought I'd ever agree with tories (must be Lib Dem influnce)
04/10/2010 at 11:46

I suppose by the same logic as some are using we should only have private education - if you want to have kids then you pay for them to be educated ?  

Same goes for the NHS and just about any other state expenditure where the money comes from general taxation but is not distributed absolutely equally.    If you live in an inner city then I suppose you should pay more for policing than someone in the Highlands.   If you are a woman you pay more for your pension as you are likely to live longer etc etc.  

The argument that they are your kids you pay for them doesn't stack up when you extend the logic to other areas - unless you are an advocate of having no real state provision of services at all.  

If people say that the well off don't need child benefit then that's a different matter - but in that case it should be done on household income - not on individual income - the proposals as they stand are not fair.     

04/10/2010 at 11:47

I agree with FB - but this is at least a step in the right direction.

On the football, music lessons, etc., - seems reasonable that those who use the services should pay for them. 

Uniforms are imposed by the schools, not the government, I believe - take it up with the school.

04/10/2010 at 11:50
JWrun wrote (see)

Thats the cost of having children today though surely? Why should the state subsidise people having kids? Its not the government that forces school uniform/football/music lessons......if you want your children to take part then you have to pay for it.

I think you'll find there are laws about sending kids out to earn a living at 12 years old.   The govt does impose certain conditions on parents - I do have to fork out for a uniform to send them to the school allocated by the state - if I don't send them then I end up in court.      If I keep them at home then I have to spend time educating them - meaning I wouldn't be able to work.   

We are a society - being a parent is very expensive - it doesn't seem unfair that some of the conditions imposed BY THE STATE on parents are offset by some financial subsidy in the form of child benefit.   

 edit - Wilkie - the school is a state school - I have to send my kids there (or another even further away which would cost even more) or else I am legally required to educate them.   If it was possible for me to send a note in saying my daughter will be attending in jeans and a sweatshirt from now on believe me I would. 

Edited: 04/10/2010 at 11:55
LIVERBIRD    pirate
04/10/2010 at 11:51
fat buddha wrote (see)
pops - the only fair system is to scrap child benefit totally irrespective of income. you want kids - you pay. you don't want kids - you don't subsidise others through tax to have them that's the only fair system in my mind


Amen Lord Buddha.

As far as I can see, higher rate tax paters are already paying more into the pot than the rest, then to effectively tax them again by taking away the ONLY benefit they get will leave people seriously pissed off.

I know a family where the husband is deliberately working only 15.5 hours at the weekend to maintain his benefits (which are considerable)

He doesn't even get up through the week. And why should he when Mr LB is paying for him to sit on his arse? He won't lose his child benefit but I will. Mr LB doesn't see his children all week - he's away working. This guy gets to pick his up from school.

1 to 20 of 334 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump