|
Fittster
Original Poster
14,934 posts
82 months
|
"Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said the government is looking at ways to make controversial plans to cut child benefit "fairer". He spoke as David Cameron also hinted moves to scrap the benefit for families where one parent earns more than about £44,000 a year could be amended. The PM acknowledged there was an issue with the threshold - amid criticism it unfairly hits single earner families. But Treasury sources said there had been no change in policy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16539428
|
|
|
thinfourth2
23,584 posts
73 months
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
What is the OP's view on "fairness".
Is it right that a couple earning combined income of £80,000 can still receive the benefit but a couple with a combined earnings of £45,000 don't?
I genuinely believe that people earning over a certain level should not get this benefit - but the current simplistic plans are extremely unfair and unjust.
|
|
|
Jimboka
2,676 posts
73 months
|
Scrounger is a bit harsh.
Child benefit has always been paid regardless of income. They plan is to cut it when earnings hit a certain threshold, which sounds fair enough you could argue.
But I wouldnt call somebody a scrounger for claiming a universal benefit, just because they have a fairly well paid job!
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
Jimboka said: Scrounger is a bit harsh.
Child benefit has always been paid regardless of income. They plan is to cut it when earnings hit a certain threshold, which sounds fair enough you could argue.
But I wouldnt call somebody a scrounger for claiming a universal benefit, just because they have a fairly well paid job! Correct in theory. But you have read how this cockeyed methodology of assessment is being implemented, I assume?
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
rhinochopig
16,055 posts
67 months
|
Eric Mc said: What is the OP's view on "fairness".
Is it right that a couple earning combined income of £80,000 can still receive the benefit but a couple with a combined earnings of £45,000 don't?
I genuinely believe that people earning over a certain level should not get this benefit - but the current simplistic plans are extremely unfair and unjust. Well said!
|
|
|
tonker
43,839 posts
117 months
|
So, those who pay the most tax just get taxed even more. To fund the continued overspend on those who contribute least and take the most in services.
Cracking idea.
We don't need the child allowance, but we already pay plenty in taxes - to effectively further increase our tax burden is just another stealth tax and when it's not being linked to cuts in benefits (which went up 5plus% this year) it's not 'fair'.
|
|
|
Happy82
5,181 posts
38 months
|
Child benefit should be cut for everyone or left as it is, it's unfair to discriminate against those who work hard. If anything, we should be discouraging the workshy from breeding.
|
|
|
Benny Saltstein
549 posts
82 months
|
I think the government realised this would be a nightmare to implement but I agree its somewhat daft that a household on £80k p/a gets any form of state benefit.
|
|
|
Zaxxon
4,057 posts
29 months
|
Cut child benefits full stop.
You can't afford children? Don't have them.
Also bring in a child license. Some prospective parents should never be allowed to breed.
|
|
|
chimster
1,554 posts
78 months
|
If this cuts the tax burden then fair enough. I didn't need it when I had kids, so it's fair from my point of view. Why was it provided originally?
|
|
|
Rude-boy
15,543 posts
102 months
|
rhinochopig said: Eric Mc said: What is the OP's view on "fairness".
Is it right that a couple earning combined income of £80,000 can still receive the benefit but a couple with a combined earnings of £45,000 don't?
I genuinely believe that people earning over a certain level should not get this benefit - but the current simplistic plans are extremely unfair and unjust. Well said! I concur. And I don't and will not be having any children.
|
|
|
tonker
43,839 posts
117 months
|
Benny Saltstein said: I think the government realised this would be a nightmare to implement but I agree its somewhat daft that a household on £80k p/a gets any form of state benefit. It's just a handout to other families. It's more electoral bribery. Because it forces those with less money to vote for the party that offers the most handouts. Nothing more, nothing less. Like handing out cash to new parents. It had worthy origins, but it's become abused. We get £81.20 a month in child allowance for the little man. It just goes into his savings account. Should we get it, probably not - but it's just a way of understating tax. And it no doubt cost tens of millions to administer and keeps more pointless public sector workers in final salary pensions. So why not just scrap it and reduce tax thresholds (this would also make it less financially lucrative for dolies to breed).
|
|
|
roachcoach
2,960 posts
24 months
|
You know its a f  ked up situation when you'd be better off refusing rises/taking a pay cut to not be worse off.
|
|
|
Fittster
Original Poster
14,934 posts
82 months
|
Eric Mc said: What is the OP's view on "fairness".
Is it right that a couple earning combined income of £80,000 can still receive the benefit but a couple with a combined earnings of £45,000 don't?
I genuinely believe that people earning over a certain level should not get this benefit - but the current simplistic plans are extremely unfair and unjust. I'd remove child benefit completely (along with other vast areas of the welfare state). Neither the couple with a joint income of 80K or a couple with a single income of 45K should be subsidized by the take payer. If you remove the benefit from the couple with the 45K earner at least you have reduced the problem by 50%. As for people on 45K whining about 'fairness' of a free taxpayer handout, my answer is ahh, didums.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
chimster said: If this cuts the tax burden then fair enough. I didn't need it when I had kids, so it's fair from my point of view. Why was it provided originally? Missing the point completely. The NOTION of only giving a benefit to someone who needs it is correct. But the way THIS benefit is being rationed is just plain bonkers. As I said earlier, some people who are better off will still get it whilst others who are worse off will lose it. It needs a serious rethink.
|
|
|
roachcoach
2,960 posts
24 months
|
Fittster said: Neither the couple with a joint income of 80K or a couple with a single income of 45K should be subsidized by the take payer. Its fairly obvious that people in those groups are subsidising the less well off, rather than the other way around. Someone on 45k pays more tax in two months than a years worth of CB is worth. ETA: Eric Mc is right here imo. The government reason for the proposed solution is, basically, doing it properly is 'too hard'. That's not a good reason.
|
|
|
tonker
43,839 posts
117 months
|
Fittster said: As for people on 45K whining about 'fairness' of a free taxpayer handout, my answer is ahh, didums. it's not about taxpayer handouts. It's about spending nearly £500,000,000.00 A DAY more than we collect. We need to stop this. And the policy of cutting child allowance for some is simply trying to pander to the Left/Liberals. We should just stop it full stop. But they won't - because there's votes in them thar policies.
|
|
|
davepoth
19,917 posts
68 months
|
tonker said: t's not about taxpayer handouts. It's about spending nearly £500,000,000.00 A DAY more than we collect. We need to stop this. And the policy of cutting child allowance for some is simply trying to pander to the Left/Liberals. We should just stop it full stop. But they won't - because there's votes in them thar policies. I think even Milliband would be able to make something of an end to it if that was the way they went.
|
|
|
Jimboka
2,676 posts
73 months
|
Eric Mc said: Jimboka said: Scrounger is a bit harsh.
Child benefit has always been paid regardless of income. They plan is to cut it when earnings hit a certain threshold, which sounds fair enough you could argue.
But I wouldnt call somebody a scrounger for claiming a universal benefit, just because they have a fairly well paid job! Correct in theory. But you have read how this cockeyed methodology of assessment is being implemented, I assume? The methology is a bit cockeyed as you say. I claimed child benefit from when my children were born, until the max age, which was last year. Under the new proposals I would have lost the benefit, which I couldnt have really complained about in the current climate. But I did not class myself as a scrounger for claiming universal child benefit for 18ish years! If I was a scrounger, I apologise!
|
|
