Child benefit whos affected

[berties]

This is truly nuts I am only complaining about a percentage of my taxes going to others earning as gixer1 says his self alot of money .

 

I am truly in favour of taxes to help myself and you for unforseen situations like illness and old age but I am not willing to fund others children upbringing .

 

I am attacking child benefits not taxes and dog wardens etc comes under taxations as a whole.

 

Yes part of my taxes should go to childrens heathcare and education but it should not go directly to parents for them to put in saving accounts.

 

Kind regards OTH

i sit on the fence with the kids issue i feel that as i have kids and still pay for school travel to get a better education for my kids the money and my time goes towards that,

what about the older generation that dont live a lavish life style saved up a few bob over 40 years for the interest when they retire and get 2% so we can help out those who borrow to much money,or your insurances go up because a inexperienced driver prangs his car but was going to fast and a car has pulled out in front and the young chap gets whip lash and gets a solicitor nice pay out no injury !but the money comes from us in the long run,lets face it we all pay for some one and could get angry ay it all,my friend is a local politition and has the same views as me hopefuly the conservatives will sort out some issues,control expences, but will up set a few people on the way,

[SimonT]

The whole system is wrong

look at this Yet this young Polish mother does not live in Britain. Her home is thousands of miles away in Lubin, a town near the picturesque city of Wroclaw in south-west Poland and close to the German border

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-48...l#ixzz11Pf5oC8Z

 

 

Every week, she puts Martina and Alan in the back of her blue Renault Clio and drives the five minutes journey to the cashpoint at her local bank. There, she draws out the £33-a-week put into her family account by the British government. It totals £1,650 each year.

Yet this young

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-48...l#ixzz11PeuYjEY

 

Until things like the the above is sorted all hard working taxpayers are screwed... May as well put on my trousers back to front and bend over now

Whatever happened to the GREAT in Great Britain...SPINELESS maybe

[gixer1]

Tripe is it, well wait until its your turn to watch a loved one die in months because both sets of treatments prior that the specialist recommends, that he says would give them a better than 80% ten year survival rate is turned down due to cost, and they are abandoned to die.

 

Dont come back with private medical care etc, as it just shows t even more that you dont need the money, its just greed.

 

 

40 years of paying into the system to be refused life-saving treatment, and you think you have a god given right cos youve paid in a few bob.

 

 

You make the mistake of thinking you know my circumstance......please don't, your problems are yours and mine are mine, neither of us are placed to comment so please refrain from doing so on my specific situation.

 

Regards,

 

Gixer.

[jonesbach]

we can all complain as much as we want, voice our opinions as loud as we can but we dont have a chance in changing anything..if you shout louder than anyone else and by a chance you are heard then you are immediately silenced because the government dont want to be seen as 'wrong'...ever!

 

To me it says it all when you look at those running the country..have many of them come from a working class background where their feet actually touch the ground now and again? they probably see earning £50k as low income!

 

I can see both sides of the argument here, if you contribute at higher rate tax, why shouldnt you be able to claim? but then if you earn more than £44k, you can afford not to claim. someone earining £20k would have most of wages taken to pay mortgage(not excessive) and bills, therefore more needing of the benefit for the child than someone earning £44k and collecting the benefit to earn interest on.

 

IMO..im with a few other members, people that have contributed into the system for a set timescale should qualify and other not..! we have funded 'foreigners'(for want of a better word) for far to long..time to adopt policies from other countries...do you see Australia welcoming polish with open arms...NOPE!!!

 

ah well..whos listening any more...?!!? :hmm:

[MM]

How to solve the problem:

 

 

Why are you all fighting amongst yourselves? Increase the peace man. We cant fight/alter the system, so lets get on with having some fun

[Marley29]

Benefits should be calculated in accordance with how much tax you have paid throughout your working life

 

Might stop teens getting up the duff, just so they can get a flat etc

 

 

I totally agree. If you can't pay out to support your own children then why on earth does the government waste "our" tax money to do it for them. I also find it Fu**ing crazy that we give them extra money when the scroungers have more sprogs!

If they require the money to fund 1 child then they should not get any extra cash when they pop out a few more. This only encourages it. Get a job like the rest of us!

 

Rant over

[shaun4860]

We put our sons child benefit into his bank account, so when ours is stopped (Our joint income is over the threshold) his bank account is the only thing to suffer. So some would say we dont need it in the first place?

( I personally think that if mrs scrote on the corner in the big house can fiddle the benefit system so that they are paying for her ever increasing brood and her mortgage/cars/satellite tv and her drink/cigs/drug habits then my boy can have £18 a week. I certainly pay more than my fair share in taxes)

 

The country is skint. We are still at war too in case anyone has forgotten (expensive bothersome things wars) We are still lobbing money at the NHS like it is the best thing since sliced bread (prefer uncut malted personally) and paying bankers billions for ******* our money down the drain!

 

My opinion for what its worth (dons tin hat) If you dont pay in to the pot, you shouldnt get anything from the pot!

 

The NHS is a failing business model because of this. (Yes I know its not a business, but you try tellling my manager/directors/primary care trust/strategic health authority/local government) The NHS is possibly the biggest example of throwing good money after bad ever.

 

Weekends spent goint to drunk after drunk after drunk can make you a miserable cynical old #### and start making you having nazi thoughts toward the great unwashed! Drunken/drugged halfwits are leading this fine country of ours to financial ruin.

 

 

 

its not a joint income.....thats what people are kicking off about

 

its if 1 person is on the higher tax rate......not the 2 added together....

 

shaun (childless scrounger)

[davepriestman]

what they should do is stop scumbags who have never worked breeding more scumbags that will never work

and us tax payers keeping them.

[MM]

what they should do is stop scumbags who have never worked breeding more scumbags that will never work

and us tax payers keeping them.

 

 

You tell em

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_law

[Cookiemonsterandmerlin.]

what they should do is stop scumbags who have never worked breeding more scumbags that will never work

and us tax payers keeping them.

 

Judging by the replies it not just dole collecting scum bags that never worked claiming benefits to fund a lavish lifestyle on us.

 

There is also well paid and working claiming child benefits to fund lavish holidays or even the child first car , I cant see the diffrents its all wrong.

 

Kind regards OTH

[Paddy Galore!]

How to solve the problem:

 

 

Why are you all fighting amongst yourselves? Increase the peace man. We cant fight/alter the system, so lets get on with having some fun

MM, have you been smoking funny stuff?

 

Can i have some???

Please?

[manxman2]

Will a gramm do.

[Paddy Galore!]

Will a gramm do.

Is it sold in metric now?

[Raja Clavata]

Judging by the replies it not just dole collecting scum bags that never worked claiming benefits to fund a lavish lifestyle on us.

 

There is also well paid and working claiming child benefits to fund lavish holidays or even the child first car , I cant see the diffrents its all wrong.

 

Kind regards OTH

 

OTH - I have a present for you; it's the benefit of doubt - you must be on a wind-up

[MM]

MM, have you been smoking funny stuff?

 

Can i have some???

Please?

 

not any more. You just get to a point when you realise that there are things you cant change, and its not worth bothering with. Its going to happen, so lets just get on with it and find a bit of happiness Talk to your kids more, or go and cut the grass. Simple things can make you see the world in a different light, and stressing to death over £20 per week aint the right way. Some things in life are just not fair (life being one big thing) but if we let it turn us bitter, its a very sad day.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, PEACE AND LOVE, PEACE AND LOVE

Edited October 5, 2010 by MM

[RossEM]

The whole point of the welfare state is to help people on low incomes, i.e. to prevent poverty - I don't believe those who earn above the national average wage should ever have been entitled to child benefit.

Neither should taxpayers ever have been funding people to become perenially pregnant. This should have been dealt with 10-15 years ago, but successive governments have done nothing about it and now it's becoming a significant social problem.

 

In my opinion, all taxation should be linked to income, and benefits linked to income/ability to work/physical & mental health where appropriate. If I ruled the world...

[Diceman]

The problem we have is that successive governments have got us used to the idea of taking lots of tax off us, processing it through the system at huge cost, and returning the balance to us in hundreds of different benefits and subsidies. We are supposed to be grateful to get our own cash back and praise their generosity. We would all be a lot better off if they just left us more of our money in the first place and only took enough to pay for the stuff that really needs paying for, and supporting the genuinely needy. The last government in particular used this recycling system as a mass job creation scheme, taking on millions of extra civil servants and state employees, who in turn would always vote for the party that maintained the system and therefore their jobs (or so they thought!) Surely better to support manufacturing and industry than create all these state functionaries?

 

I am going to lose the child benefit, but I'm less bothered about that as I am that a household earning 88K per year is going to keep it. I'm all for tightening the purse strings to try and pay back some of Gordon's debts, but this system doesn't equally punish those that can afford to lose out. The only explanation I've heard so far from the government is that it would be too complicated and expensive to administer a fairer system. No wonder that Inland Revenue screwed up so many tax bills if that is the level of their expertise. (Hmm...civil servants again...)

 

Anyway, it doesn't happen until 2013 and I'm prepared to wager a month's child benefit that there will have been some sort of U-turn on this before then.

And if not, here's a cunning wheeze if you are just over the threshold - I was told today that if you bang enough of the excess into your pension to take you back under the limit (your taxable salary is calculated after pension contributions) you get to keep the benefit.

[RossEM]

Just reading through the thread...does anyone seriously disagree with the point that the principal function of child benefit is to assist people who are on the breadline? A couple of people seem to think it's a trust fund?

 

The welfare state (and in particular the NHS) was created following the Beveridge Report in an attempt to rid this country of poverty - not to give the middle classes a nest egg each for their children. If you pay private healthcare insurance, fine, but don't complain about paying into the NHS. You do both because you are able to afford it.

 

The more you earn, the more tax you pay - because you can afford to pay more. You are not more entitled to state services because you pay more - this is because there are many people in the UK who genuinely work hard and contribute, but struggle to pay for every day things. If you don't agree, you can always move to a country with an alternative tax system.

 

We all pretty much agree about the scroungers, whether or not you're an immigrants is irrelevant, if your purpose in life is to make a living from the welfare state then you deserve nothing.

The welfare state needs a lot of reform but the ideology that it was founded on is still relevant and it is still depended on by a lot of hard working people.

[Cookiemonsterandmerlin.]

Just reading through the thread...does anyone seriously disagree with the point that the principal function of child benefit is to assist people who are on the breadline? A couple of people seem to think it's a trust fund?

 

 

Spot on I cant belive my thoughts have been attacked so hard by some on here who clearly dont need to keep there child in food and clothing to a reasonable standard.

 

Yes some do seem to see it as a trust fund on us and I am not a wind up RJ just straight talk to point type and as always some dont like .

 

Regards OTH

[Aled]

As a family we are not being affected by the child benefit changes, although my wife and i between us do earn more than the £44k we are a very long way way short of the £88K. Those of you who say changes in child benefit should be based on household income rather than one person's income have my agreement.

 

However thats not what i'm going to comment upon.

I worked and lived in an area described as "deprived" i saw parents take their children to 3 or 4 different type of health care professionals to get their children diagnosed as "disabled" why to get the extra £100 to £300 per month. If theyd put that amount of effort into getting a job they'd be earning that amount extra per week (this was before recession fever!). And what did they do with their extra cash, p**s it up against the wall, stuff it up thier nose, or smoke it! The children did not gain from it.

 

Another example, a middle class family two hardworking parents, have 2 children born with a disability. They would give anything to have children without this disability. After hearing and seeing examples of the above story they claim for the disability fund, they got the lower end amount, and place it in a bank account for thier children's future.

 

Who do you have most sympathy with??? Who is using the money for thier children and who is using it for their own gain?

My point, every case is different, and how people spend/use money from the state varies. Food for thought?

 

Any comments?

Aled

Edited October 6, 2010 by Aled

[Fisherman Mike]

I dont think we need worry too much about it... 44k threshold or not..

 

There will be a new Government within 18 months and the bill wont even be implimented.

 

This coalition is doomed to failure, you cannot "Cut" your way out of recession, you have to invest and readjust the balance of payments defecit with the profits from investment levied on some of the major conglomerates that have a monopoly, like the Energy companies and Tescos . Anyone who knows anything about economics theorum knows that you have "spend" your way out of recession.

 

When these other cuts start biteing after Christmas, together with the increase in VAT, expected rises in Oil prices and the BoE base rate there is going to be a recession like we have never witnessed before in this country, with mass unemployment and business failures of some real blue chip companies. This coalition will be doomed by Summer next year.

 

Sadly the Country is being run by three very inexperienced schoolboys who just have not got a clue... Quote our PM "its like the interest on a credit card " what a patronising little **** he is.!

 

Its going to be bloody tough for every one next winter and Child benefit will be the least of our problems.

 

History dictates that we need a good War to re-build the economy...

 

Now whose it going to be......

 

I reckon Wales...we would have a good chance of winning that..

[Guest gloker]

I think saying £80 a month is a "trust fund" is laughable personally. I earn good money, so therefore I pay a small fortune in tax every month. I work shifts, work long unsociable hours (I seem to be at work all the bl**dy time!) I dont see why my son should not get the £80 a month that Joe scrotes son gets when his father sits on his ***** all day every day contributing frig all to society and paying knack all in taxes? That is my point. Yes I do believe that there are some genuine people who depend on benefits to live but from what I see every day at work they are in the minority.

 

I speak from past experience too.

My mum was widowed young and brought me up on her own (selfish **** strung himself up and my dad is my step dad, if you know what I mean ) I was dragged up on a ****ty council estate in leeds and we didnt have a pot to **** in, we lived on benefits and my mum worked in a pub. (no i dont know if she declared it but probably not.) she scratched a living and I lived in second hand clothes and was always bloody hungry.

 

My earliest memory is of making 50p moulds in blue tack, fill them with water, freeze and use the ice fifties to feed the gas meter! we had **** all!

[Dr W]

Anyone who knows anything about economics theorum knows that you have "spend" your way out of recession.

 

Only one opinion and not necessarily the right one.

 

What happens if you spend so much on credit that any benefit you gain is eaten up in increased interest repayments?

 

What happens when we borrow so much that our credit rating is downgraded so credit becomes more expensive?

 

Not sure the current situation can necessarily be compared to previous examples. Also while the people running the country might not be the most experienced they're using teams of experts to make decisions just as every other government has done.

[Gonk]

There were hints that married couples could transfer their taxable allowance where there is only one income which would make this a little fairer. When I got married in Cyprus last year part of the service was to promise to raise my children as "useful members of society", now there's a thought! This is only the beginning, as long as everyone does there part, it's done fairly and the wasters and hangers on are dealt with I won't complain. What annoyed me about Cameron was that he said it's now up to the higher tax payer to do thier bit - what do you think 40% tax is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Raja Clavata]

The problem we have is that successive governments have got us used to the idea of taking lots of tax off us, processing it through the system at huge cost, and returning the balance to us in hundreds of different benefits and subsidies. We are supposed to be grateful to get our own cash back and praise their generosity. We would all be a lot better off if they just left us more of our money in the first place and only took enough to pay for the stuff that really needs paying for, and supporting the genuinely needy. The last government in particular used this recycling system as a mass job creation scheme, taking on millions of extra civil servants and state employees, who in turn would always vote for the party that maintained the system and therefore their jobs (or so they thought!) Surely better to support manufacturing and industry than create all these state functionaries?

 

I am going to lose the child benefit, but I'm less bothered about that as I am that a household earning 88K per year is going to keep it. I'm all for tightening the purse strings to try and pay back some of Gordon's debts, but this system doesn't equally punish those that can afford to lose out. The only explanation I've heard so far from the government is that it would be too complicated and expensive to administer a fairer system. No wonder that Inland Revenue screwed up so many tax bills if that is the level of their expertise. (Hmm...civil servants again...)

 

Anyway, it doesn't happen until 2013 and I'm prepared to wager a month's child benefit that there will have been some sort of U-turn on this before then.

And if not, here's a cunning wheeze if you are just over the threshold - I was told today that if you bang enough of the excess into your pension to take you back under the limit (your taxable salary is calculated after pension contributions) you get to keep the benefit.

 

What I like about you Mr Diceman is that you say just about everything I want to say / am thinking but in a way better than I can and certainly entailing less effort for me - all that is left for me to do is nod sagely (ok, perhaps not so sagely given the emoticon)

 

OTH - my real issue with what you are saying is that your logic and rationale just don't stack up in my book (and I believe in this instance my book is the right correct one). Your opinion leans me to think to hell with it; scrap the lot (all benefits) and I'll take my chances as I already have private health care and can afford cover for most other things with net positive cash in pocket - but that would go against my principles. Not to mention it would put this country back many decades in terms of social evolution.