Child benefit to be cut Page 20

  • Page

    of 22 First / Last

  • Psychotext 7 Jan 2013 12:29:03 53,801 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Dougs wrote:
    The whole policy is so disastrous
    Why? Is it because it doesn't take account of the finances of you and your partner combined?
  • Dougs 7 Jan 2013 12:31:25 66,637 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Yeah, the implementation is unfair - the idea of those earning over X to lose out is one thing, but to implement it in such a way that leaves one family with 2 earners on 49k still in receipt, but another with just one working parent on 60k losing out seems barmy. Amazed there hasn't been a judicial review or ECHR appeal yet.

    Edited by Dougs at 12:34:11 07-01-2013
  • RyanDS 7 Jan 2013 12:33:15 9,056 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    GiarcYekrub wrote:
    Meh! Its only for rich people on 50K+ they can afford a cut
    Rich people at 50k?

    Jesus. I'd say 50k in London is just getting into the "not struggling" range, certainly not the rich range.
  • brokenkey 7 Jan 2013 12:35:18 6,944 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I'd sooner chew my own arm off than sign up to annual self assessment. The way they've implemented this change is bollocks at every level.

    3DS 3497-0122-1484
    XBL/PSN/NNID: CptnBrokenkey

  • mcmonkeyplc 7 Jan 2013 12:39:31 39,384 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Why the flying fuck can't any government get to grips with regional taxing/benefits?!

    It's not fucking hard you fucktards.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • brokenkey 7 Jan 2013 12:45:10 6,944 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Why the flying fuck can't any government get to grips with regional taxing/benefits?!

    It's not fucking hard you fucktards.
    You mean linking tax benefits with, say, costs of housing in X part of the country? Mostly because it would accelerate migration to the south east, which in turn would require further subsidies to people living in the SE, resulting in an overall increase in benefits costs and reduced tax income.

    People move to where they get more money. See EU migration. What you actually want is to have them all spread out, rather than clustered.

    3DS 3497-0122-1484
    XBL/PSN/NNID: CptnBrokenkey

  • mcmonkeyplc 7 Jan 2013 12:53:36 39,384 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    You can prevent that. You have to live and work in a region for X amount before you can claim benefits.

    The EU migrants also have this by the way as far as I remember.

    That's another problem entirely, people thinking immigrants = benefit whores.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • brokenkey 7 Jan 2013 12:57:09 6,944 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I'm not picking on immigrants with regards to benefits, I'm only referring to how population migration works - people move to where they think they'll earn more. If you reduced taxes in the SE, everyone will move the to SE to pay lower taxes.

    3DS 3497-0122-1484
    XBL/PSN/NNID: CptnBrokenkey

  • Dougs 7 Jan 2013 12:59:22 66,637 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Exacerbating the north/south divide.
  • Razz 7 Jan 2013 13:00:04 60,754 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    RyanDS wrote:
    GiarcYekrub wrote:
    Meh! Its only for rich people on 50K+ they can afford a cut
    Rich people at 50k?

    Jesus. I'd say 50k in London is just getting into the "not struggling" range, certainly not the rich range.
    Yep. The missus and I earn little over 75K between us, we lead a good life but far from what most would consider Rich

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steam/PSN/XBOX: Razztafarai | 3DS: 1246-9674-8856
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

  • GiarcYekrub 7 Jan 2013 13:08:38 3,660 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The average wage is 26,500 so if your earning 50k+ yeah I'd say your pretty well off.
  • brokenkey 7 Jan 2013 13:13:30 6,944 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    GiarcYekrub wrote:
    The average wage is 26,500 so if your earning 50k+ yeah I'd say your pretty well off.
    You can't possibly make that judgement without knowing what the costs of living is for any given area - ie determine what's an average housing space should be, an average food basket etc, and then see what he's actually living in and eating, and then compare the costs of those against what he earns.

    3DS 3497-0122-1484
    XBL/PSN/NNID: CptnBrokenkey

  • disusedgenius 7 Jan 2013 13:13:35 5,205 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    GiarcYekrub wrote:
    The average wage is 26,500 so if your earning 50k+ yeah I'd say your pretty well off.
    Tis a different world down here...
  • Dougs 7 Jan 2013 13:17:46 66,637 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Depends on a number of factors. Where you live, size of rent/mortgage/other commitments. If you live rent free at home, then yeah. But I'd doubt most people with a mortgage on 50k would be well off. Not on the breadline and probably able to not worry too much but doubt there's much left at the end of the month
  • onestepfromlost 7 Jan 2013 13:19:30 2,039 posts
    Seen 48 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    with our combined wage of 17K me and the mrs have it all!
  • kalel 7 Jan 2013 13:20:44 86,325 posts
    Seen 52 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    All depends on what you call well off really.
  • GiarcYekrub 7 Jan 2013 13:21:56 3,660 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Why anybody would live in London does puzzle me, does seem way to expensive to contemplate.

    Heres the ONS wage stats http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666

    I've said for ages that house prices are overvalued all over the country, I blame the debt bubble that hasn't been deflated. The Average house should cost 4 1/2 times the average household income for an area
  • GiarcYekrub 7 Jan 2013 13:22:05 3,660 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    [duplicate post]

    Edited by GiarcYekrub at 13:23:57 07-01-2013
  • disusedgenius 7 Jan 2013 13:25:08 5,205 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    GiarcYekrub wrote:
    Why anybody would live in London does puzzle me, does seem way to expensive to contemplate.
    Because living in an expensive city with your industry concentrated in it is still better than living somewhere inexpensive without it, unfortunately.
  • Scurrminator 7 Jan 2013 13:38:02 8,378 posts
    Seen 52 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Dougs wrote:
    So, seeing as today is the day the changes come into force, has anyone opted out of child benefit? And who will be completing a self assessment? Personally, I'm OK at the moment but as soon as I nudge over that threshold, I'll be throwing money into my pension. The whole policy is so disastrous
    I don't see why it's a disaster. Why should everyone get it? Some people need it and others don't.
    I've heard some people bitching that they are the sole worker in their house and thus they will be worse off. Well how about your other half gets the fuck to work so the rest of us don't have to subsidise that lifestyle!

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • Psychotext 7 Jan 2013 13:39:50 53,801 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Because living in an expensive city with your industry concentrated in it is still better than living somewhere inexpensive without it, unfortunately.
    This is true... though commuting is obviously a very valid option.

    That aside, you could pay me 500k a year and I wouldn't live in London.

    /spits
  • RyanDS 7 Jan 2013 13:43:12 9,056 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Scurrminator wrote:
    Dougs wrote:
    So, seeing as today is the day the changes come into force, has anyone opted out of child benefit? And who will be completing a self assessment? Personally, I'm OK at the moment but as soon as I nudge over that threshold, I'll be throwing money into my pension. The whole policy is so disastrous
    I don't see why it's a disaster. Why should everyone get it? Some people need it and others don't.
    I've heard some people bitching that they are the sole worker in their house and thus they will be worse off. Well how about your other half gets the fuck to work so the rest of us don't have to subsidise that lifestyle!
    And what do you do with te kid? Have you seen the price of child care?
  • DaM 7 Jan 2013 13:43:36 12,897 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    We're out of it, but I haven't opted out. I don't have a big wage, so most tax gets calculated on my annual return. I might be under the threshold again next year if I shunt things round a bit (for other legitimate reasons not just to get FB!).

    I don't have a problem with losing it, would rather the money go to someone who really needs it, than to pay for our Saturday night takeaway.
  • darrenb 7 Jan 2013 13:49:31 676 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    We have never spent any of our boys child benefit, it just gets paid straight into an account that is his.. Will be a good start when he hits 18.

    There will be no help for anyone by that point. At the minute we won't lose the benefit so masking the most of it :-)
  • Scurrminator 7 Jan 2013 14:00:47 8,378 posts
    Seen 52 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    RyanDS wrote:
    Scurrminator wrote:
    Dougs wrote:
    So, seeing as today is the day the changes come into force, has anyone opted out of child benefit? And who will be completing a self assessment? Personally, I'm OK at the moment but as soon as I nudge over that threshold, I'll be throwing money into my pension. The whole policy is so disastrous
    I don't see why it's a disaster. Why should everyone get it? Some people need it and others don't.
    I've heard some people bitching that they are the sole worker in their house and thus they will be worse off. Well how about your other half gets the fuck to work so the rest of us don't have to subsidise that lifestyle!
    And what do you do with te kid? Have you seen the price of child care?
    Yes - I pay childcare. Both parents can get childcare vouchers which slashes off 240 a month between you if you take the full amount.
    Someone would have to be earning a pretty shitty wage if the cost of childcare coupled with the paltry 80 is more than they could earn and bearing in mind that the family would at least have to have someone in the house earning 60k to have no child benefits in the first place.
    I'm also a firm believer that if you can't afford children then should you really be having them; we're not having anymore as it would be far too costly to do so.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • Scurrminator 7 Jan 2013 14:02:06 8,378 posts
    Seen 52 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    darrenb wrote:
    We have never spent any of our boys child benefit, it just gets paid straight into an account that is his.. Will be a good start when he hits 18.

    There will be no help for anyone by that point. At the minute we won't lose the benefit so masking the most of it :-)
    Ours just goes into a big family savings pot too. if we didn't have it we wouldn't notice and as a family we bring in 50k between us.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • DaM 7 Jan 2013 14:03:29 12,897 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    The vouchers aren't free money though - it's a salary sacrifice, so it's still your salary, just tax-free.
  • Fab4 7 Jan 2013 14:03:48 5,976 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    If you are 'struggling' on 50 grand a year perhaps having kids in the first place isnt the best life choice you've made.
  • kalel 7 Jan 2013 14:05:33 86,325 posts
    Seen 52 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Scurrminator wrote:
    I'm also a firm believer that if you can't afford children then should you really be having them; we're not having anymore as it would be far too costly to do so.
    Where do you draw that line though? Take away free education? Take away free healthcare?

    The country gets fucked pretty quickly if having children is only something the rich can afford.
  • brokenkey 7 Jan 2013 14:08:31 6,944 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I'm surprised people aren't more annoyed by losing this. On one child its the same as losing 2k off your salary (3% pay cut) , 2 kids its 3.5k (6%).

    If you go with the argument that "we're all in this together" and "rich people don't need the money", then why not just tax everyone who earns more than 50k?. Why pick on just the ones who are bringing up the next generation of high earners?

    And winter fuel benefits for fucking ex-pats.??!!

    Edited by brokenkey at 14:10:35 07-01-2013

    3DS 3497-0122-1484
    XBL/PSN/NNID: CptnBrokenkey

  • Page

    of 22 First / Last

Log in or register to reply