BENEFITS
Is the chancellor right to withdraw child benefit from those earning £40k or more on higher tax bands?
I think he is right to do so (well, I would, wouldn't I) and those that are whinging about it should take their complaint up with their Labour MP who's governance caused the problem in the first place.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Conservative Conference - BENEFITS
last reply
100 replies
3.9k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
Yep, he's right. I think child benefit should be limited for everyone anyway - it shouldn't be paid for any more than two children.
Yes most definatly right.
Also he needs to stop the same benefit being paid to foreign workers kids still living abroad.
Why the fuck should foreign parents get a benefit when the kids do not even live here ffs??
Yes this benefit should be means tested, and I believe you should not get this benefit if you have more than three kids, as you can obviously afford them if YOU choose to have that many.
Anyone who earns over 35 grand a year and that would be per household, should not get it.
I am sick and tired of seeing this benefit paid to families with a zillion kids.
The benefit being paid to parents whose kids have never even been here, makes me choke on my breakfast....are we fucking nuts in this country, or what??
It is about time the whole welfare system was looked at seriously, which it looks like it is. And it is madness of the highest order to have a system that pays more for people to sit on their arses all day, rather than do a days work.
It cannot come soon enough for me and the scroungers and fakes out there, will be shaking in their boots, wondering if this will now catch up with them, and be forced into looking for work....seriously being forced.
Also he needs to stop the same benefit being paid to foreign workers kids still living abroad.
Why the fuck should foreign parents get a benefit when the kids do not even live here ffs??
Yes this benefit should be means tested, and I believe you should not get this benefit if you have more than three kids, as you can obviously afford them if YOU choose to have that many.
Anyone who earns over 35 grand a year and that would be per household, should not get it.
I am sick and tired of seeing this benefit paid to families with a zillion kids.
The benefit being paid to parents whose kids have never even been here, makes me choke on my breakfast....are we fucking nuts in this country, or what??
It is about time the whole welfare system was looked at seriously, which it looks like it is. And it is madness of the highest order to have a system that pays more for people to sit on their arses all day, rather than do a days work.
It cannot come soon enough for me and the scroungers and fakes out there, will be shaking in their boots, wondering if this will now catch up with them, and be forced into looking for work....seriously being forced.
and so George Osborne says, quite rightly, that the whole benefits system culture needs to change.
There will be a limit on the amount of benefits paid to the average amount that would be paid if you are in work (with safeguards for the disabled). Hooo fucking hooooray!!!!!
The shirkers are probably arranging for some enterprising young chaps to break their legs for a few grand so they can stay on benefits....
Moi? a cynic...... non
There will be a limit on the amount of benefits paid to the average amount that would be paid if you are in work (with safeguards for the disabled). Hooo fucking hooooray!!!!!
The shirkers are probably arranging for some enterprising young chaps to break their legs for a few grand so they can stay on benefits....
Moi? a cynic...... non
Sex God
On the J.V. show today, they were discussing the ending of the Child Benefit for anyone who is a top rate tax payer. Quite a few people rang in who had one of the parents earning that amount while the second parent earned nothing or very little. Hence they would be down a fair amount of cash compared to a family with two workers each earning just under 44K.
One thing J.V. never asked........who did you vote for then ??? Bet a fair few of these "midlle class" voted Tory !!!
It's only the start folks..............
John
One thing J.V. never asked........who did you vote for then ??? Bet a fair few of these "midlle class" voted Tory !!!
It's only the start folks..............
John
Quote by GnV
and so George Osborne says, quite rightly, that the whole benefits system culture needs to change.
There will be a limit on the amount of benefits paid to the average amount that would be paid if you are in work (with safeguards for the disabled). Hooo fucking hooooray!!!!!
The shirkers are probably arranging for some enterprising young chaps to break their legs for a few grand so they can stay on benefits....
Moi? a cynic...... non
Who's going to pay for unemployed families to relocate from Westminster to somewhere else once Porter's Law part two comes in?
Sex God
Quote by GnV
BENEFITS
Is the chancellor right to withdraw child benefit from those earning £40k or more on higher tax bands?
I think he is right to do so (well, I would, wouldn't I) and those that are whinging about it should take their complaint up with their Labour MP who's governance caused the problem in the first place.
Yes of coarse he is correct, at the moment we have the poor paying tax to keep the well off, that's bloody crazy!
Sex God
Quote by awayman
and so George Osborne says, quite rightly, that the whole benefits system culture needs to change.
There will be a limit on the amount of benefits paid to the average amount that would be paid if you are in work (with safeguards for the disabled). Hooo fucking hooooray!!!!!
The shirkers are probably arranging for some enterprising young chaps to break their legs for a few grand so they can stay on benefits....
Moi? a cynic...... non
Who's going to pay for unemployed families to relocate from Westminster to somewhere else once Porter's Law part two comes in?
I earned just under £10K last year, and managed to support my wife and 3 children. If some one earning £40K can not, I say, tuff shit!
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
and so George Osborne says, quite rightly, that the whole benefits system culture needs to change.
There will be a limit on the amount of benefits paid to the average amount that would be paid if you are in work (with safeguards for the disabled). Hooo fucking hooooray!!!!!
The shirkers are probably arranging for some enterprising young chaps to break their legs for a few grand so they can stay on benefits....
Moi? a cynic...... non
Who's going to pay for unemployed families to relocate from Westminster to somewhere else once Porter's Law part two comes in?
I earned just under £10K last year, and managed to support my wife and 3 children. If some one earning £40K can not, I say, tuff shit!
Completely support them, without any benefits at all?
Quote by Freckledbird
and so George Osborne says, quite rightly, that the whole benefits system culture needs to change.
There will be a limit on the amount of benefits paid to the average amount that would be paid if you are in work (with safeguards for the disabled). Hooo fucking hooooray!!!!!
The shirkers are probably arranging for some enterprising young chaps to break their legs for a few grand so they can stay on benefits....
Moi? a cynic...... non
Who's going to pay for unemployed families to relocate from Westminster to somewhere else once Porter's Law part two comes in?
I earned just under £10K last year, and managed to support my wife and 3 children. If some one earning £40K can not, I say, tuff shit!
Completely support them, without any benefits at all?
Sorry but that is impossible to do on 10 grand.....On that low ammount of money you certainly would be on family tax credits, which is a benefit.
I have to say..excellent idea..all for it.
This is quite obviously a deal to keep liberal democrats on board...for when the other cuts hit the poorer more.
However...he will come under pressure from the rank and file of the tory pary... just watch the rest of the party bleat on about this and throw it out. How much you want a bet it will get thrown out and watered down ??
This is quite obviously a deal to keep liberal democrats on board...for when the other cuts hit the poorer more.
However...he will come under pressure from the rank and file of the tory pary... just watch the rest of the party bleat on about this and throw it out. How much you want a bet it will get thrown out and watered down ??
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Yes of coarse he is correct, at the moment we have the poor paying tax to keep the well off, that's bloody crazy!
Can you explain that one to me Blue?
I always thought it was the well off that kept the poor?
Kent, the argument is that that those on much, much less than the 44 grand a year being bandied about are contributing via their taxes to a welfare system that pays benefits to those on much, much more than 44 grand. Therefore, the poor are subsidising the rich. That at least is one of the arguments being used to explain the logic of the cut, and 'prove' that the Tories are being 'fair' and 'progressive'. It's complete bollox, obviously. ;)
Quote by Dean
This is quite obviously a deal to keep liberal democrats on board...for when the other cuts hit the poorer more. However...he will come under pressure from the rank and file of the tory pary... just watch the rest of the party bleat on about this and throw it out. How much you want a bet it will get thrown out and watered down ??
Exactly this I think Dean. It seems to be designed purely to demonstrate that we really are all in this together, even the Tory voting middle-class, and that it's not just the poor that are taking the hit, except of course that it's not coming in til 2013, by which time either the plan will have radically changed, or the economy will have grown enough to allow for tax breaks for higher-earning families that will offset it.
N x x x ;)
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
and so George Osborne says, quite rightly, that the whole benefits system culture needs to change.
There will be a limit on the amount of benefits paid to the average amount that would be paid if you are in work (with safeguards for the disabled). Hooo fucking hooooray!!!!!
The shirkers are probably arranging for some enterprising young chaps to break their legs for a few grand so they can stay on benefits....
Moi? a cynic...... non
Who's going to pay for unemployed families to relocate from Westminster to somewhere else once Porter's Law part two comes in?
I earned just under £10K last year, and managed to support my wife and 3 children. If some one earning £40K can not, I say, tuff shit!
Completely support them, without any benefits at all?
Sorry but that is impossible to do on 10 grand.....On that low ammount of money you certainly would be on family tax credits, which is a benefit.
With benefits the household income was £15K
and here is another good idea
Married couples 'to get tax break by 2015
Quote by neilinleeds
Kent, the argument is that that those on much, much less than the 44 grand a year being bandied about are contributing via their taxes to a welfare system that pays benefits to those on much, much more than 44 grand. Therefore, the poor are subsidising the rich. That at least is one of the arguments being used to explain the logic of the cut, and 'prove' that the Tories are being 'fair' and 'progressive'. It's complete bollox, obviously.
Ermmmm Neil...I cannot see your logic at all.
People on low earnings pay low tax...people on high earnings pay the higher rate of tax.
I just cannot understand how the poor contribute as much as the rich, so therefore the rich subsidise the poor, not the other way around surely?
Or am I being thick here?
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Kent, the argument is that that those on much, much less than the 44 grand a year being bandied about are contributing via their taxes to a welfare system that pays benefits to those on much, much more than 44 grand. Therefore, the poor are subsidising the rich. That at least is one of the arguments being used to explain the logic of the cut, and 'prove' that the Tories are being 'fair' and 'progressive'. It's complete bollox, obviously.
Ermmmm Neil...I cannot see your logic at all.
People on low earnings pay low tax...people on high earnings pay the higher rate of tax.
I just cannot understand how the poor contribute as much as the rich, so therefore the rich subsidise the poor, not the other way around surely?
Or am I being thick here?
No one has said that the poor pay more than the rich, but the poor pay tax and some of that goes to pay benefits to people who are earning over £44K
I hope they sort the double income anomaly and get this implemented as quickly as possible
Quote by Bluefish2009
Kent, the argument is that that those on much, much less than the 44 grand a year being bandied about are contributing via their taxes to a welfare system that pays benefits to those on much, much more than 44 grand. Therefore, the poor are subsidising the rich. That at least is one of the arguments being used to explain the logic of the cut, and 'prove' that the Tories are being 'fair' and 'progressive'. It's complete bollox, obviously.
Ermmmm Neil...I cannot see your logic at all.
People on low earnings pay low tax...people on high earnings pay the higher rate of tax.
I just cannot understand how the poor contribute as much as the rich, so therefore the rich subsidise the poor, not the other way around surely?
Or am I being thick here?
No one has said that the poor pay more than the rich, but the poor pay tax and some of that goes to pay benefits to people who are earning over £44K
I hope they sort the double income anomaly and get this implemented as quickly as possible
Yes I understand that Blue, but anyone who earns over 44 grand a year is surely only entitled to child benefit anyway?
I do not look at it as a benefit to be honest, as it is not means tested....it is a persons right which is slightly different.
Yes the poorer amongst us indeed do pay tax, but it I suppose just goes into a big pot.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Kent, the argument is that that those on much, much less than the 44 grand a year being bandied about are contributing via their taxes to a welfare system that pays benefits to those on much, much more than 44 grand. Therefore, the poor are subsidising the rich. That at least is one of the arguments being used to explain the logic of the cut, and 'prove' that the Tories are being 'fair' and 'progressive'. It's complete bollox, obviously.
Ermmmm Neil...I cannot see your logic at all.
People on low earnings pay low tax...people on high earnings pay the higher rate of tax.
I just cannot understand how the poor contribute as much as the rich, so therefore the rich subsidise the poor, not the other way around surely?
Or am I being thick here?
It's not my logic Kenty? It's the Govt's.
If you don't believe me, ask George Osborne, who said as he announced the cut at the Conservative conference 'it is very difficult to justify taxing people on low incomes to pay for the child benefit of those earning so much more than them.' hence my earlier statement that the Tories would say that the logic behind the cut is that the poor are subsidising the rich, yadda, yadda, ya. Well done on being able to detect the unmistakable aroma of bullshit as it curls around your nostrils though? ;)While you're at it, ask Gorgeous George whether that means other universal benefits like free healthcare on the NHS, or free comprehensive education for all are also under review, cos after all, the tax I pay on the much less than 44 grand a year I earn subsidises those who can probably afford BUPA and Eton, so we should probably do away with them as well? ;) There is the Govt's logic taken to its extreme, and I have to wonder if the whole point of the attack on the universality of Child Benefit is that it's a useful Punch and Judy sideshow that will nevertheless set a dangerous precedent for further cuts if we swallow it? I mean, it can't be about the paltry 1 billion it's meant to save, can it? :?
N x x x ;)
Fair points Neil.
I personally think they should scrap all the child benefit....why?
Why should the Government pay people because they have kids?
Cannot afford them, then don't have them.
Or pay for the first child but not any more than the first.
I want to see other benefits looked at more closely, like incapacity benefit, or disability living bollocks...too many bad back merchants out there.
People like this fraudster...
24 fecking weeks? It is almost worth it for the amount of money he nicked, plus this is the tip of a massive iceberg.
Once out of prison he should never ever be allowed to claim any benefits ever again.
Harsh? You bet it is. People know that even when caught the law does very little or in most cases nothing at all....get tough Cameron and quick.
I personally think they should scrap all the child benefit....why?
Why should the Government pay people because they have kids?
Cannot afford them, then don't have them.
Or pay for the first child but not any more than the first.
I want to see other benefits looked at more closely, like incapacity benefit, or disability living bollocks...too many bad back merchants out there.
People like this fraudster...
24 fecking weeks? It is almost worth it for the amount of money he nicked, plus this is the tip of a massive iceberg.
Once out of prison he should never ever be allowed to claim any benefits ever again.
Harsh? You bet it is. People know that even when caught the law does very little or in most cases nothing at all....get tough Cameron and quick.
I think its a good idea in principle but badly executed, although I do understand the Government's thought process. The tax system works on an individual's income, not the total income of a household and they are trying to align the child benefit to the tax system for simplicity, rather than trying to replicate the horrendous mess that is the tax credit system devised by the last government.
Quote by Max777
I think its a good idea in principle but badly executed, although I do understand the Government's thought process. The tax system works on an individual's income, not the total income of a household and they are trying to align the child benefit to the tax system for simplicity, rather than trying to replicate the horrendous mess that is the tax credit system devised by the last government.
and maybe it paves the way for restoration of tax breaks for couples....
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Kent, the argument is that that those on much, much less than the 44 grand a year being bandied about are contributing via their taxes to a welfare system that pays benefits to those on much, much more than 44 grand. Therefore, the poor are subsidising the rich. That at least is one of the arguments being used to explain the logic of the cut, and 'prove' that the Tories are being 'fair' and 'progressive'. It's complete bollox, obviously.
Ermmmm Neil...I cannot see your logic at all.
People on low earnings pay low tax...people on high earnings pay the higher rate of tax.
I just cannot understand how the poor contribute as much as the rich, so therefore the rich subsidise the poor, not the other way around surely?
Or am I being thick here?
No one has said that the poor pay more than the rich, but the poor pay tax and some of that goes to pay benefits to people who are earning over £44K
I hope they sort the double income anomaly and get this implemented as quickly as possible
Yes I understand that Blue, but anyone who earns over 44 grand a year is surely only entitled to child benefit anyway?
I do not look at it as a benefit to be honest, as it is not means tested....it is a persons right which is slightly different.
Yes the poorer amongst us indeed do pay tax, but it I suppose just goes into a big pot.
I do see your point, but to me, it is government money, given to them by the tax payer, including poorer tax payers and then handed back to some very well off people... simply wrong in my view
Quote by kentswingers777
Yes most definatly right.
Also he needs to stop the same benefit being paid to foreign workers kids still living abroad.
Why the fuck should foreign parents get a benefit when the kids do not even live here ffs??
Yes this benefit should be means tested, and I believe you should not get this benefit if you have more than three kids, as you can obviously afford them if YOU choose to have that many.
Anyone who earns over 35 grand a year and that would be per household, should not get it.
I am sick and tired of seeing this benefit paid to families with a zillion kids.
The benefit being paid to parents whose kids have never even been here, makes me choke on my breakfast....are we fucking nuts in this country, or what??
It is about time the whole welfare system was looked at seriously, which it looks like it is. And it is madness of the highest order to have a system that pays more for people to sit on their arses all day, rather than do a days work.
It cannot come soon enough for me and the scroungers and fakes out there, will be shaking in their boots, wondering if this will now catch up with them, and be forced into looking for work....seriously being forced.
These people are not scrounging.
They are claiming what the law says they are entitled to.
They have been working and paying taxes here for a year and so are eligible for it under EU rules agreed by the British government.
Just as British people working in Poland are entitled to the equivalent benefit over there to be sent back to children living over here.
I note that this story you have dug out is over two years old - I suspect the figure is now a lot less as many Polish workers have now returned home.
The whole point about parents being given child benefit is that we need to encourage people to have children to in order to pay for our retirement. If we don't have enough people paying into the system, we'll need more migrant workers coming here paying in to our system and fill the skills gap. Which you will then moan about.
And can you tell me how many families have a "zillion kids"? Because statistics - not the occasional stories you constantly recycle from the tabloids as evidence - show that the average number of children per household in this country is....1.8
But you never let the facts get in the way of your (ill informed) opinion, do you Kenty?
PS: How many children do you have?
Let me see if ive got this right;
You work hard and do really well and work your way up the ladder, so no child benefit for you.
You sit at home claiming benefits and you get child benefit.
I think that ALL child benefit should be stopped, if you havent got enough money to support your children, don't have any.
You work hard and do really well and work your way up the ladder, so no child benefit for you.
You sit at home claiming benefits and you get child benefit.
I think that ALL child benefit should be stopped, if you havent got enough money to support your children, don't have any.
Quote by Stevie J
And can you tell me how many families have a "zillion kids"? Because statistics - not the occasional stories you constantly recycle from the tabloids as evidence - show that the average number of children per household in this country is....1.8
But you never let the facts get in the way of your (ill informed) opinion, do you Kenty?
PS: How many children do you have?
1.8?
:lol: :lol: Is that British families, or are you including all foreign families in that figure? Ah British families, as eastern European families have a damn site more kids than 1'8!! I read somewhere not long ago that Romanian rates are 2'6 Funny Stevie boy as you must lurk behind your curtains, waiting for me to post something so you can reply to it...do you ever reply to anybody else's posts? I feel almost flattered. :twisted:
You say I am " ill informed " and I say you speak " drivel ".....
Quote by Stevie boy
we need to encourage people to have children to in order to pay for our retirement
Encourage people? A lot do not need anymore encouragement....do you really believe all this left wing rubbish you read in the Mirror? Really some people are just so gullible.
When the population gets to 70 million, do you really think there will be enough money in the pot to pay for everything? Certainly not enough to pay for peoples retirements!
Your last question frankly is none of your business mate!!
Why do you think the Government are now deciding to scrap some benefits? As your beloved Labour party so aptly put it.... " no money left ".
Sex God
Quote by flower411
Yay !!! Sterilise the unemployed ! :bounce:
Oh Flower, you do make me laugh! Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
I do see your point, but to me, it is government money, given to them by the tax payer, including poorer tax payers and then handed back to some very well off people... simply wrong in my view
Is it wrong that the well off have access to free health care and free schooling for their kids? Poorer tax payers contribute to them too? Is it equally wrong that those who choose not to have kids should contribute to those that do? Perhaps there are good pro-social arguments in favour of universal benefits that outweigh the saving of a paltry 1 billion?
N x x x ;)
Quote by neilinleeds
I do see your point, but to me, it is government money, given to them by the tax payer, including poorer tax payers and then handed back to some very well off people... simply wrong in my view
Is it wrong that the well off have access to free health care and free schooling for their kids? Poorer tax payers contribute to them too? Is it equally wrong that those who choose not to have kids should contribute to those that do? Perhaps there are good pro-social arguments in favour of universal benefits that outweigh the saving of a paltry 1 billion?
N x x x ;)
Isn't that called a "welfare state"?
