Child benefit to be cut Page 22

  • Page

    of 22 First / Last

    Next
  • fergal_oc 7 Jan 2013 15:24:42 2,763 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I don't get the whole "only have kids if you can afford it" argument. What does afford it mean? Not have any benefits?

    If that was the case the population of the country would halve in 3 generations, now that makes sense doesn't it given that your welfare when you're older is in part going to be paid for by today's kids.

    The thing that's annoyed me the most is that every minister I've heard speak about this issue has happily mixed the concept of household with person. They keep saying that this is only effecting the top 15% of household earners because they're taking it from a household where a single parent earns more than 60k. That's just plain wrong.

    Cameron goes on about the family and a good balance but he's directly impacting those who are trying to live that balance between hard work and family life. It feels like he's hedging his bets that by the time the election comes around more lower earners will have decided to vote tory than higher earners have decided to take their vote elsewhere.
  • Scurrminator 7 Jan 2013 15:26:30 8,378 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    and I'm defo for benefits. I'm just not so sure everyone should get them (though Kalel's point about maybe everyone should be allowed them for the first child is a fair one).

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • Fab4 7 Jan 2013 15:28:00 5,976 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Perhaps they should just issue shoe vouchers instead.
  • nickthegun 7 Jan 2013 15:33:50 58,782 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I would do a salary exchange for shoe vouchers. My daughter is like a fucking golf club at the moment.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Deleted user 7 January 2013 15:59:08
    I agree with cutting child benefit to incomes over 50k. It is unnecessary, and people putting it away for savings or fucking piano lessons is evidence of this. The benefit should be there to help people in need.

    I would love to know what in the world the logic is behind the two parents on 49,999 being fine (while a family with one parent 2 over is fucked). Please, I'm pretty forgiving of this government and don't jump to the default shit flinging like most but I just can't see the logic in this.
  • Scurrminator 7 Jan 2013 16:03:17 8,378 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    I agree with cutting child benefit to incomes over 50k. It is unnecessary, and people putting it away for savings or fucking piano lessons is evidence of this. The benefit should be there to help people in need.

    I would love to know what in the world the logic is behind the two parents on 49,999 being fine (while a family with one parent 2 over is fucked). Please, I'm pretty forgiving of this government and don't jump to the default shit flinging like most but I just can't see the logic in this.
    It's literally because they can't be arsed with the paperwork.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • THFourteen 7 Jan 2013 16:03:23 32,857 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    its just numbers isnt it.

    they statistically work out how much money they would like to save and then statistically work out what and whom to cut make up that number.

    its all done on computer models.
  • disusedgenius 7 Jan 2013 16:12:25 5,205 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Scurrminator wrote:
    It's literally because they can't be arsed with the paperwork.
    Also that paperwork costs money, but yeah.
  • Scurrminator 7 Jan 2013 16:20:48 8,378 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    well yes that as well; though I'm sure this venture is also costing a fair amount of millions up front.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • Waffleaber 7 Jan 2013 16:23:21 374 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    My instant reaction (and still how I feel) was that this was an unfair way to cut child benefit.
    Looking at it from the other side however if the government went with households earning over 75K (for arguements sake) lose the benefit you would then have the situation where a couple where both work and earn over 75K in total but are paying childcare lose out where a couple where one partner earns 74K and the other looks after the kids gets full benefit without childcare costs included.
    It's a pain in the arse and I think I'd go for the second option but there would still be massive opposition.
  • fergal_oc 7 Jan 2013 16:23:51 2,763 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Scurrminator wrote:
    well yes that as well; though I'm sure this venture is also costing a fair amount of millions up front.
    Someone on the BBC suggested that HMRC have had to employee more people to cover this change in welfare than they currently have working on reducing tax loopholes for tax evaders and big business.
  • Chopsen 7 Jan 2013 16:26:55 15,716 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    fergal_oc wrote:
    Scurrminator wrote:
    well yes that as well; though I'm sure this venture is also costing a fair amount of millions up front.
    Someone on the BBC suggested that HMRC have had to employee more people to cover this change in welfare than they currently have working on reducing tax loopholes for tax evaders and big business.
    Ah, nothing there's like a meaningless comparison when having a proper discussion about the issues seems too much like hard work. It's up there with saying "who is going to lose their job?" when something fucks up. Good ol' BBC.

    Edited by Chopsen at 16:27:20 07-01-2013
  • Bremenacht 7 Jan 2013 16:28:46 17,606 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    That's not surprising seeing as they (well, Gordon Brown) got rid of most HMRC types as part of that stupid 'cutting bowler hatted bureaucrats' bollocks.

    As bright ideas go, that sits up there with his other idea of getting rid of job centres.
  • Psychotext 7 Jan 2013 16:44:06 53,808 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    As bright ideas go, that sits up there with his other idea of getting rid of job centres.
    In fairness, job centres never really did anything for anyone. In my experience you pretty much went there when you had given up actually trying to find a job and just wanted to check the boxes and get your benefits.

    No idea how it is now though.
  • Dougs 7 Jan 2013 17:16:22 66,652 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    No, that sounds quite accurate. Plenty of unskilled jobs through there though I guess.
  • morriss 7 Jan 2013 18:55:38 70,911 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Who are these people who use Child Benefit for piano lessons. How many are there? What percentage are we talking about and are they indicative of society as a whole?
  • ResidentKnievel 7 Jan 2013 19:13:53 6,111 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    My sister had piano lessons.

    I'm not sure if my parents allocated much of their child benefit to them, though, it was mostly spent on shoes.

    [code]Armoured_Bear wrote:
    Unlike yourself, I don't have a weird obsession with any platform.[/code]

  • Psychotext 7 Jan 2013 19:26:16 53,808 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    We used to eat shoes. In hindsight this may have not been the most effective use of our limited funds.

    That said, if kids need shoes so often, why not just get them from Asda? Surely it doesn't matter if they only last a few months given how often they grow out of them?
  • Megapocalypse 7 Jan 2013 19:29:26 5,309 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Because kids have to have the most expensive latest items in fashion they can. Or they die.
  • Bremenacht 7 Jan 2013 19:30:42 17,606 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    Bremenacht wrote:
    As bright ideas go, that sits up there with his other idea of getting rid of job centres.
    In fairness, job centres never really did anything for anyone. In my experience you pretty much went there when you had given up actually trying to find a job and just wanted to check the boxes and get your benefits.

    No idea how it is now though.
    I think the job centre plus sites still exist. Most stuff is done through welfare-to-work outfits like A4e, who apparently do a worse job of getting people into long-term employment (i.e. more than the minimum target) and have gained notoriety for fiddling claims. Bumper profits for the owners though and fat pay for directors, so not all bad.
  • Psychotext 7 Jan 2013 19:32:08 53,808 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Megapocalypse wrote:
    Because kids have to have the most expensive latest items in fashion they can. Or they die.
    Ahh... I was a poor kid. I know nothing of fashion. :)
  • Nexus_6 7 Jan 2013 20:08:36 3,872 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    I agree with cutting child benefit to incomes over 50k. It is unnecessary, and people putting it away for savings or fucking piano lessons is evidence of this. The benefit should be there to help people in need.

    I would love to know what in the world the logic is behind the two parents on 49,999 being fine (while a family with one parent 2 over is fucked). Please, I'm pretty forgiving of this government and don't jump to the default shit flinging like most but I just can't see the logic in this.
    Read the comment piece on page 13 of the Herald today mowgli? ;-)
  • Deleted user 7 January 2013 20:10:26
    Haha yup! Possibly where I got the piano bit from... :D
  • Nexus_6 7 Jan 2013 20:14:09 3,872 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    It was the piano bit and the example of 49999 and 2 quid over that gave it away!

    Interesting article if only for the first column preamble.
  • Deleted user 7 January 2013 20:46:15
    Yeah it was a decent piece, did nothing to change my opinion but gave me something clear cut to pinch for debate!
  • Page

    of 22 First / Last

    Next
Log in or register to reply