Universal benefits

[shoes]

£45k?! Ha I earn £24k (ok not strictly true, but that's my salary before bonuses) and I live very comfortably. Very comfortably indeed. unless you live in islington, which is your own stupid fault, then £45k is lush. Mortgage eats up most of your income? Tough shit, move to a smaller house, free up some equity and reduce you payments.

 

[zebidee]

Bit hard when you've got a mighty mortgage on a tiny house. Plus people don't like being forced to change the way they live, do they?

So they popped out a sprog to get the extra money to get a bigger house? Ludicrous, **** their child benefits. If I can earn 23k and still afford a mortgage on a 3 bed house I have no sympathy for someone on double that who can't, just because they chose to breed. Their choice, they live with it.

Did I say anywhere that someone had a baby in order to get extra money? I said that it's a bit hard to be told to manage on £80 less an month when that was giving you breathing room from the price of the mortgage payments.

And who knows what to make of the Daily Mail stating that it wouldn't apply to a couple each earning slightly under the threshold, surely the government wouldn't seriously think that a family earning a combined income of £80k needs child benefit more than a one wage family earning £44k?

If a parent stays at home your childcare costs are massively reduced, certainly by more than child benefit covers. Although, this being the DM, I won't bother arguing further until its shown to be the truth.

So the £80,000 earning family deserves it then?

What irritates me is it even goes against their blooming campaign to 'reward' married couples who have one parent at home. Seems that they can't keep their own policies straight.

I'm with shoes on this one, I don't think married couples should get any breaks. Why incentivise an outmoded practice of forcing people together, surely if they want to stay together they would, regardless of tiny contributions towards their boglin factory?

never said I agreed with it. Said they can't keep their policies straight. The tax breaks for marrieds is a bunch of crap if you ask me, but why say something, then act in a way that is completely contrary? Yes yes it's politics, well ya know what? That's crap too.

Let's hope the government start doing things to actually HELP people soon.

As far as I can see they are trying to reduce the absolutely massive debt the last gov got us into, and if taking benefits off people that really have no right to them in the first place is their first call then I say good on them. I'd say stop child benefit at the second kid though, and certainly not pay it if your HOUSEHOLD earns more than 44k. You can afford to pay for your own kids, why do I have to support you if you earn double what I do?

Those people earning more than 44k are paying tax too, at a higher rate. How about everyone just keeps their own money a sod everyone else eh? What? Not everyone can afford it? Can't pay for private medical care? Are there potholes in the road? Not our problem...

Anyway, sorry, don't mean to pick on you, I just like to think about every angle of an argument.

 

[zebidee]

Shoes, my dear, ever heard of being non-confrontational?

Yes, lets all be liberal wishy washy hippies and achieve the square root of FA.

The fact alone you think that was confrontational shows how much of a spineless wimp you are - people like YOU are the reason this country is so messed up.

As I said before, we need some strict right wing domination in this country for a good decade or two to snap us all back into shape. The blitz generation must despair seeing how the country they fought for has degenerated so much. The one's who are left anyway.

 

[shoes]

you're totally missing the point, this is about benefits for those who do not deserve them. no one is complaining about tax paid into the nhs, highways or anywhere else where we all benefit from it. this discussion is purely about those receiving benefits when they don't need them - for example having your nth child, being married or earning £44k and still receiving benefits.

If £80 a month is your 'breathing room' then you definitely took on too big a mortgage. Way too big.

 

[Gramaisc]

The Civil List

I think it may have been Barry Cryer who suggested renaming Prince Charles's slice of the Civil List as - Throneseeker's Allowance'...

 

[zebidee]

Are you deciding who deserves it then? Come on Shoes, lets go round all the homes of people receiving benefits and do a statistical analysis of who deserves what and who doesn't, we'll call it the Special Shoes Test and you can just make up your mind based on what they look like.

 

[tek-monkey]

Did I say anywhere that someone had a baby in order to get extra money? I said that it's a bit hard to be told to manage on £80 less an month when that was giving you breathing room from the price of the mortgage payments.

You didn't say that, no, but if someone is so mortgaged up that whilst earning over 44k they still require an extra £80/month handout to pay the mortgage then they are living well beyond their means. They made a very bad decision buying a house, and need to reassess their lives quite frankly. If you can't get by on £2700 takehome per month its really nobodys fault but your own?

So the £80,000 earning family deserves it then?

Nope, I say cut it for all with a family income over 44k TBH. The problem is then you have to employ lots of drones to wade through everyones finances to see who is actually entitled, whereas this is very easy to administer. There is no point saving money if you spend more doing it in the first place. Personally I'd say make it a tax allowance transferable between parents, but obviously if a couple splits up make it the resident parent who gets it. May even make a few deadbeat dads stick around if they are financially worse off for buggering off?

never said I agreed with it. Said they can't keep their policies straight. The tax breaks for marrieds is a bunch of crap if you ask me, but why say something, then act in a way that is completely contrary? Yes yes it's politics, well ya know what? That's crap too.

Financially its single people with no kids that are worst off when it comes to tax, yet nobody gives them a break.

Those people earning more than 44k are paying tax too, at a higher rate. How about everyone just keeps their own money a sod everyone else eh? What? Not everyone can afford it? Can't pay for private medical care? Are there potholes in the road? Not our problem...

We need benefits as a safety net, for those that fall on hard times. Its a great thing, when administered properly. Its just a shame it isn't! Taxes are a way to make sure things can be done in the country, and that those who can most afford to pay do so. I've never understood why benefits are available to people in the top tax bracket, it makes no sense, they are supposed to be for the most vulnerable in society?

As for medical care, I'd hate to live in the US where if you have the wrong insurance you may as well walk home from your car crash and hope you get better. Where an accident could mean selling your house to pay off the debts incurred. I think our system is OK in principal, it just needs some creases ironing out. Stopping benefits for those that really aren't in poverty and capping the maximum benefits you can actually get seem a very good start to me.

Anyway, sorry, don't mean to pick on you, I just like to think about every angle of an argument.

No problem at all. This is a forum, a place to exchange views. It'd be a dull world if we all thought the same, albeit probably safer!

 

[zebidee]

its really nobodys fault but your own?

Please lets not keep using the 'you'. I'm arguing the reasons why people feel miffed about it, I never brought my situation into the mix. If you must know, we're under that threshold anyway. My argument is based on two points - couples with much higher incomes possibly still getting the benefit and taking away money that has become something people rely on. £20 a week for expenses on a child may sound a lot, but broken down over a year? It probably covers a lot of it: clothes, food etc.

Financially its single people with no kids that are worst off when it comes to tax, yet nobody gives them a break.

I'd be interested to know the breakdown here, in terms of actual available income, not simply tax. Just interested, no more than that.

We need benefits as a safety net, for those that fall on hard times. Its a great thing, when administered properly. Its just a shame it isn't! Taxes are a way to make sure things can be done in the country, and that those who can most afford to pay do so. I've never understood why benefits are available to people in the top tax bracket, it makes no sense, they are supposed to be for the most vulnerable in society?

The thing here is that Child Benefit was supposed to be, as pointed out in the thread title, a universal benefit for everyone *with children, for the extra cost incurred by this*. By creating a tier system people ARE effectively being given money to breed, people who are on lower incomes ARE getting more because they have children. Thus creating MORE antagonism between 'classes'.

No problem at all. This is a forum, a place to exchange views. It'd be a dull world if we all thought the same, albeit probably safer!

Thank you, I like to talk to people who don't engage in personal attacks but offer reasoned arguments.

 

[tek-monkey]

Please lets not keep using the 'you'. I'm arguing the reasons why people feel miffed about it, I never brought my situation into the mix. If you must know, we're under that threshold anyway. My argument is based on two points - couples with much higher incomes possibly still getting the benefit and taking away money that has become something people rely on. £20 a week for expenses on a child may sound a lot, but broken down over a year? It probably covers a lot of it: clothes, food etc.

Not a prob, I say you as in 'you who are complaining' and don't specificaly mean you! Anyway, times are hard and everyone needs to cut back. Surely the top 15% of earners losing a benefit they really shouldn't need is a fair first step to cutting our massive benefits bills? They can absorb the loss much easier than someone on an average wage (i.e. half theirs) and are the ones who should need it least.

I do not agree with letting double earners potentially still get it, but the costs involved in a method to analyse everyones household income would be too great.

I'd be interested to know the breakdown here, in terms of actual available income, not simply tax. Just interested, no more than that.

Well you don't get to share rent, any bills such as heating/light etc. council tax, water rates, even the tv license is now halved as there are 2 of you etc. The difference in a 1 or 2 bed place are quiote small in rental terms, so therefore a couple actually are a lot better off as long as both work than 2 single people are.

The thing here is that Child Benefit was supposed to be, as pointed out in the thread title, a universal benefit for everyone *with children, for the extra cost incurred by this*. By creating a tier system people ARE effectively being given money to breed, people who are on lower incomes ARE getting more because they have children. Thus creating MORE antagonism between 'classes'.

Can our society really afford benefits for all, regardless of who needs them? The benefit system needs a massive shakeup, it already costs more than is gained from NI. With a population on the rise yet only 70% of those of working age in employment do we really need more people? Or do we need to slim down, make sure the next generation has at least 3m less people to ensure there are more jobs available so therefore less on benefits?

The main problem here of course is that people are living longer, and we'll have a population skewed towards th retired, but as they've now cottoned onto the initiative by Stafford Hospital to correct this I'm not sure what else we can do.

Thank you, I like to talk to people who don't engage in personal attacks but offer reasoned arguments.

I'm not drinking at present, so am a lot more reasonable!

 

[shoes]

Are you deciding who deserves it then? Come on Shoes, lets go round all the homes of people receiving benefits and do a statistical analysis of who deserves what and who doesn't, we'll call it the Special Shoes Test and you can just make up your mind based on what they look like.

This is like trying to have a debate with a four year old.

No. It's perfectly simple. In the context of this thread, I outlined quite clearly, right above your post, my thoughts:

this discussion is purely about those receiving benefits when they don't need them - for example having your nth child, being married or earning £44k and still receiving benefits.

Personally I don't think you should be entitled to squat after about 16k. It's perfectly possible to live on 16k, probably less in all fairness. It won't be an extravagant lifestyle, but tough shit. When I moved out from my parent's house in 2004 I was earning 12k dead. I appreciate that the cost of living has increased since then, but it's not 30% more for sure.

We've all had to live like a student at some point, but most people manage to progress up the career ladder or change how they make money to fulfil an increased standard of living, if they so desire. If you don't want to then fair enough, if you do but can't be arsed to do anything about it then tough shit.

I don't know what it is, but I just cannot get my head around why we would give people more money to have kids? It should be a privilege, not a human right. Why is it a human right?! You can't drive a car unless you pass a test. You can't even go on most building sites these days without a CSCS card, effectively a licence to say you're smart enough to pass a multiple choice test about not walking in front of diggers etc. Yet you're allowed to have children without any form of screening whatsoever!?!?

And then you get PAID TO DO IT!? I have a human right to water. As such, from now on the government should pay my water bill. What do you think the response would be if I asked for that?

I think a much fairer society would be if everyone paid a flat rate of tax, say 25%. Everyone. Cleaners, Office workers, Bankers, MPs etc. Everyone. Couple that with some serious cost saving. Promote independent schools, for example. Stop ALL benefits to everyone working and earning more than 16k, regardless of children - you, as an individual can control whether you have them, regardless of outgoings - you have control over those too.

This should free up some money for those who actually need it - disabled people, pensioners, education authority etc.

I have lots of ideas on how to administer JSA but that's for another thread.

The bottom line is - why do we have to pay others to have children, especially those earning a salary well above the national average?

 

[zebidee]

I'd be interested to know the breakdown here, in terms of actual available income, not simply tax. Just interested, no more than that.

Well you don't get to share rent, any bills such as heating/light etc. council tax, water rates, even the tv license is now halved as there are 2 of you etc. The difference in a 1 or 2 bed place are quiote small in rental terms, so therefore a couple actually are a lot better off as long as both work than 2 single people are.

That doesn't work for a single income family though, which is what I was talking about, so your argument works perfectly for removing the child benefit of two working parents earning in excess of 30,000 each for instance, but doesn't really hold up for the single income family on one wage of £45,000.

Can our society really afford benefits for all, regardless of who needs them? The benefit system needs a massive shakeup, it already costs more than is gained from NI. With a population on the rise yet only 70% of those of working age in employment do we really need more people? Or do we need to slim down, make sure the next generation has at least 3m less people to ensure there are more jobs available so therefore less on benefits?

The main problem here of course is that people are living longer, and we'll have a population skewed towards th retired, but as they've now cottoned onto the initiative by Stafford Hospital to correct this I'm not sure what else we can do.

all the more reason to have plenty of young, healthy people? /devils advocate.

 

[zebidee]

And I outlined mine

"My argument is based on two points - couples with much higher incomes possibly still getting the benefit and taking away money that has become something people rely on. £20 a week for expenses on a child may sound a lot, but broken down over a year? It probably covers a lot of it: clothes, food etc."

Having children benefits the country, it gives plenty of cannon fodder for our wars, provides future tax payers and people to look after us in old age.

And flat tax rate? Not even going to touch that as it's irrelevant to child benefit.

 

[tek-monkey]

That doesn't work for a single income family though, which is what I was talking about, so your argument works perfectly for removing the child benefit of two working parents earning in excess of 30,000 each for instance, but doesn't really hold up for the single income family on one wage of £45,000.

I guess I was saying it costs more to be single than in a steady relationship, i.e. moved in together. I never considered a couple where one doesn't work, as I guess I'd never get into a relationship with someone who wouldn't! I still don't understand why though, when you have this nice environment, everyone should have to pay you money to have a kid? What if that kid grows up into a world where there is no job for him/her (highly likely), then not only have we paid you to have them but we must pay to support them all their lives?

Of course a good war would help, but we don't even do that properly nowadays. We hardly lose a man now, apart from when we crash coptors or get too close to americans. Unless we have enough jobs, which I can't see happening, we don't need excess kids surely? We need to thin out the oldies, stop people living so long past their sell by date, and everything would be fine. Not politically correct, but fine. Maybe we should do a Logans Run, but give you 10 years of retirement?

 

[shoes]

If a person earns 44k a year, or £623 per week after tax and NI, and that extra £20 is something to be relied on then they are very very foolish. I have no sympathy and they can drink chateau neuf du pap from sainsbury's rather than harrods - that'll free up a few quid. Trade the beemer in for a mondeo. Don't really care - not my problem.

Can't afford kids? Don't have 'em. It's for that reason I drive a focus and not a porsche. It's perfectly simple - have kids when you can afford them - if you never get to the stage that you can afford them then it wasn't meant to be, sorry.

I have a lot more sympathy, endless in fact, for broken families - say you have 2 or 3 kids and then you get divorced and you're left with very little - child benefit should be paid (responsibly) in this instance over someone having a child knowing they can't afford it any day in my books.

 

[zebidee]

haha, but then what would we do when some guy comes running in shouting LOOK! LOOK, IT'S CLEAR! ?

 

[Alan B'Stard]

Having children benefits the country, it gives plenty of cannon fodder for our wars, provides future tax payers and people to look after us in old age.

At last, somebody with a reasoned, sensible view.

 

[Withnail]

I think a much fairer society would be if everyone paid a flat rate of tax, say 25%. Everyone. Cleaners, Office workers, Bankers, MPs etc. Everyone.

Poll tax doesn't tend to go down too well in this country.

cf.

1381

1990

 

[Withnail]

This is like trying to have a debate with a four year old.

No. It's perfectly simple. In the context of this thread, I outlined quite clearly, right above your post, my thoughts:

this discussion is purely about those receiving benefits when they don't need them

TBF you have strayed a little from such purity along the way, so no need to be rude.

It does seem to be a bit of a no-brainer though; after all it will not genuinely affect anybody whom it affects, so to speak.

The only concern would be the cost of administering the change - will it actually save £1bn?

Loved 'Call me Dave' saying "that's £1bn we don't have to cut from x, £1bn we don't have to cut from y and £1bn we don't have to cut from z." That's one magic £1bn! It diminishes not!

 

[shoes]

Having children benefits the country, it gives plenty of cannon fodder for our wars, provides future tax payers and people to look after us in old age.

At last, somebody with a reasoned, sensible view.

Our population has been expanding in a healthy way for thousands of years before we had child benefit. or any form of welfare system.

 

[shoes]

Having children benefits the country, it gives plenty of cannon fodder for our wars, provides future tax payers and people to look after us in old age.

At last, somebody with a reasoned, sensible view.

Our population has been expanding in a healthy way for thousands of years before we had child benefit. or any form of welfare system.