Bolitics The New Condem Government

[thetrees]

Daft question.

I pay higher rate tax.

My wife is a 'homemaker' with no income, who claims no benefits (and for whom I get no tax relief)

Our children are both of ours.

I can't claim child benefit for them, but can my wife?

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

I have never been rich enough to have kids so I didn't have any. The concept of having kids and then begging to the state for handouts afterwards is not really my cup of tea tbh. Kids are a massive investment in time and money and lasts forever virtually, yet people fall over themselves to bring kids into the world, from a non parent point of view looking in it's a dirty pit of greed, envy, postcode desire, school runs and general misery.

Why should people with no kids pay for idiots who have them and can't afford them ?

If I buy a Ferrari on credit will the stay at home moms help me pay for that as it seems it is a little of my budget ? If I could sort it out I would make all prospective parents pay a bond of 10 K, returned with interest when the child reaches 16 as long as they have no serious criminal record and have achieved a certain degree of academic performance based on their ability. They can use this for university then thus solving that little problem. No other benefits to be paid at all for having a child, it's not that difficult a task........

(No 10k bond paid then it comes straight out of their wages/other benefits until paid)

It would be interesting to see who really wants kids then as I suspect not as many as now,

Not a very popular view granted but a view all the same.

[Risso]

My kids' taxes will probably be funding the nurse who wipes your arse and pays for your meals on wheels in years to come.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

My kids' taxes will probably be funding the nurse who wipes your arse and pays for your meals on wheels in years to come.

Compulsory private health care in Holland, no NHS here.

Apart from that....spot on :?

As I said, I don't have enough money for kids so I put some away for a rainy day or when i get old. What's wrong with that, I don't want to get stuff for free when I could work hard and earn it.

[blandy]

The threshold thing is wonky, too surely.

Person earning 1 pound p.a. less than the threshold gets 2 grand (or whatever it is)given to them in child allowance. Person earning one pound more than the threshold doesn't get the two grand (or whatever it is). That's bonkers. It's the exact opposite of what the Tories have been talking about with regard to getting people off benefits and on to work. That (they say) working doesn't pay, because they lose benefits and end up worse off.

The policy is inchoherent, ill thought out drivel. It's also against the declared election policies of both the LDs and the Tories.

Meanwhile, the banks will pay oput 7 billion in bonuses. RBS, which only exists because taxpayer money rescued them and is owned by the Gov't, pretty much, paid out last year more than 100 bonuses of more than a million quid each and hundreds of multiple £100K. And no-one bats an eyelid in Gov't. No-one acts to stop a repeat of the crisis, no-one acts to stop the raging inequality.

The Lib Dems want to, but the Tories ignore them. Labour were not much better, either.

No wonder people think they're all hypocritical words removed in the thrall of the bankers.

[ender4]

i'm one of those who currently gets Child Benefit, and won't under the new rules.

If they had done it with household income then we would have still received it.

Yet i'm ok with the proposal, and can see why they have done it that way. It make the cost of administration much simpler, and to be fair, its not like i (or any other high-rate earner) really need that £80/month anyway.

[ender4]

as for the capping of benefits at £26k after tax...

you mean people were getting more than this level before!!! :shock: that is disgraceful.

about time common-sense prevailed.

[blandy]

i'm one of those who currently gets Child Benefit, and won't under the new rules. If they had done it with household income then we would have still received it.

That doesn't make compute. The income for the household in which you live cannot be less than your income.

[LondonLax]

The threshold thing is wonky, too surely.

Person earning 1 pound p.a. less than the threshold gets 2 grand (or whatever it is)given to them in child allowance. Person earning one pound more than the threshold doesn't get the two grand (or whatever it is). That's bonkers. It's the exact opposite of what the Tories have been talking about with regard to getting people off benefits and on to work. That (they say) working doesn't pay, because they lose benefits and end up worse off.

Yes that is a bit stupid.

It will be odd when people start telling their employers they don't want their next pay rise as it will take 2 grand off their income over all.

The duel income verse single income issue is dumb as well.

Having said that, it seems to be daily mail readers screaching the loudest so it can't be all bad

[ender4]

i'm one of those who currently gets Child Benefit, and won't under the new rules. If they had done it with household income then we would have still received it.

That doesn't make compute. The income for the household in which you live cannot be less than your income.

They based it on one person earning more than £44k (which i do).

But if they had based it on a household income of £88k (or even £60k), then we would still have qualified.

Anyway, the point i'm making is that i'm one of those who lose out by the quirk of basing on one earner, whilst our neighbours might be earning £40k each & receive it. and i am happy with it.

so i'm not sure why people are complaining.

It will save £1bill a year, with minimal admin costs. If they had done it based on means-testing each household, the complexity of administration would have wiped out a decent chunk of the savings.

[Chindie]

Married couple tax break being mooted as a sop to those the child benefit cut has pissed off.

[Risso]

Married couple tax break being mooted as a sop to those the child benefit cut has pissed off.

Have I mentioned that I get all of my wife's personal allowance (over £9K) added to my mine?

[leviramsey]

My kids' taxes will probably be funding the nurse who wipes your arse and pays for your meals on wheels in years to come.

Compulsory private health care in Holland, no NHS here.

Apart from that....spot on :?

As I said, I don't have enough money for kids so I put some away for a rainy day or when i get old. What's wrong with that, I don't want to get stuff for free when I could work hard and earn it.

The logical solution is to get the state out of funding care for the elderly.

[snowychap]

Daft question.

I pay higher rate tax.

My wife is a 'homemaker' with no income, who claims no benefits (and for whom I get no tax relief)

Our children are both of ours.

I can't claim child benefit for them, but can my wife?

Has Levi hacked into your account?

[snowychap]

The threshold thing is wonky, too surely.

Person earning 1 pound p.a. less than the threshold gets 2 grand (or whatever it is)given to them in child allowance. Person earning one pound more than the threshold doesn't get the two grand (or whatever it is). That's bonkers. It's the exact opposite of what the Tories have been talking about with regard to getting people off benefits and on to work. That (they say) working doesn't pay, because they lose benefits and end up worse off.

Indeed. I think that's really where this flat rate withdrawal of the benefit might have an effect.

Why would someone look at earning between the threshold and the threshold plus 2 times the amount of child benefit they received?

[snowychap]

i'm one of those who currently gets Child Benefit, and won't under the new rules.

If they had done it with household income then we would have still received it.

I'm sorry, you've lost me there - how on earth do you work that one out?

... its not like i (or any other high-rate earner) really need that £80/month anyway.

Don't claim it, then. You don't have to. If you think you don't really need it then stop claiming it tomorrow. Don't wait until 2013.

Edit: There appeared to have been nothing gained from the last discussion about benefits so it would appear daft to go over old ground.

so i'm not sure why people are complaining.

Some people are complaining for the following reason:

Stupid government is stupid.

[chrisp65]

Have to say, whilst there is a great arguement for the universality of child benefit, there's also a compelling arguement that someone earning £19k pa shouldn't be contributing towards the benefit handouts for the children of millionaires.

It'll be interesting to see the biggest losers once the full package has been revealed, this is just one piece.

[claret75]

But we should be looking at income per earner rather than household income shouldn't we?

Why? Do you not understand the concept of household income?

In your household are your finances and Jellybean's finances completely separate?

If a single earner of 44k makes more than the average income of a 2 earner household, neither of who earn 44k, why is it unfair that they should bear the benefit cut? After all, they have more money for themselves than the 2 earner household does individually, so should have extra cash to spend on their child and be less needy than the 2 parent household.

I think that your first mistake is equating two earners with two parents.

Just because there's more money coming into a household, doesn't mean that household is any better off than the single earner.

It means that the household with a higher income is the household with a higher income.

I'm not sure what your definition of 'better off' is as you seem to have gone on about disposable income per individual earner and then something about being 'needy'?

Most people would quite simply see a household income as a reliable measure of how well-off a household was (allowing for the difference in the cost of living).

A family of four (two parents earning £40k each and two children of 8 & 10) v a family of three (one parent earning £44k and two children of 8 & 10).

The marginal costs of the extra working parent would not consume all of the extra income.

If you believe that the latter family is better off than the first then I'm amazed.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to get around to pointing out that if the benefit were based on a level of household income then some two parent households might well lose out, relatively, in comparison to single parent households then, at a push, there is a bit of a point.

Edit: Though, reconsidering my last comment, I'd have thought most of that would get swallowed up by the increased costs of child care for a one parent family where that parent is working.

I misunderstood who the cuts were going to affect, for some reason I'd got it in my head that the cuts would hit single parent families that earned 44k+, meaning there wouldn't be a partner to provide.

These cuts are actually very badly thought out, almost as badly thought out as my original argument . How can they justify not applying the cuts to a household earning 86k, but cut benefit for a household earning 45k I don't know.

As for mine and jellybean's finances being seperate, they weren't, but they are know as we split up last week.

[peterms]

My kids' taxes will probably be funding the nurse who wipes your arse and pays for your meals on wheels in years to come.

Compulsory private health care in Holland, no NHS here.

Apart from that....spot on :?

As I said, I don't have enough money for kids so I put some away for a rainy day or when i get old. What's wrong with that, I don't want to get stuff for free when I could work hard and earn it.

The logical solution is to get the state out of funding care for the elderly.

Indeed. Send for the beadle to give the blighters a sound thrashing before escorting them to the workhouse. Like in the good old days, before all this state funded socialistic nonsense reared its head.

[peterms]

as for the capping of benefits at £26k after tax...

you mean people were getting more than this level before!!! :shock: that is disgraceful.

about time common-sense prevailed.

It would be helpful to see how many, and in what circumstances.

It would also be helpful to know in respect of what they were getting this funding, and who was the actual beneficiary.

My guess is that we are talking about a tiny number of large households in Inner London who are homeless, who the local authority can't find housing for because of government policy preventing them building housing, and so the council have had to enter into a private sector leasing arrangement.

This means that a private landlord can let a large property to the council at a massive rent, because they really have no choice. (Well, until they repeal the homelessness legislation, which I had thought was legislation the Libs supported, or so David Steel may have thought).

The recipient of the money is the landlord, who may be an individual, a company, an offshore trust, or whatever. But it's the family who lives there that is assumed, falsely, to be getting the benefit of the money, when in fact they just pass it to the landlord.

This kind of case is meat and drink to the tories because it fuels the ignorant prejudice that there's a load of people out there, mainly immigrants/asylum seekers, living a life of luxury at our expense.

The point of the story, of course, is that it gives some ideological cover, however thin and poorly researched, to the coming cuts in benefits to protect bankers' bonuses.