I didn't hear it but perhaps what she means is someone on a lower wage has decided they can't afford kids, hasn't had any yet part of their tax goes to people earning double to chip in for theirs...

I'm not sure where I sit on this but I earn around 12k a year (before tax). I couldn't afford a child realistically so don't have any. Perhaps on our combined wage we could just say stretch to it with alot more belt tightening but I wouldn't want to bring a child into the world where we were struggling that much or where £20 was such a major influence that you simply couldn't rely on always being there.

We are a good 17k below the cut off for this benefit (combined) and I think we could manage quite well if we were on said cut off point without the assistance. Maybe because we're not very well off I find this difficult to understand, but I struggle to see how on such a wage a person/couple need that £20. There are people on far less than that, that get by and probably would without the extra if they had to.

If people on these wages think they are hard done by, try being the people right in the middle. Stuck between scroungers with no intention of working or see being a baby making factory as a career and those significantly better off moaning over £20. Those people are entitled to nothing, not even working tax credits generally barring the same 'family allowance' if they choose to have children. The 'middle class' always seem to feel hard done by and maybe in some ways they are but those slightly (if not quite a bit) below are just as much if not more and really just have to get on with it.

And before anyone jumps up, someone has to do the 'crappy' jobs so if it wasn't me it would be someone else, they need to be done. There is no point trotting out the line 'better yourself', someone always has to do these jobs and the fact is they do it and cope as best they can. If any group needs a little help and doesn't get it it's the min wage workers. Perhaps if more was geared that way, we'd get some of the workless off their **** as who'd want to go out to work to be worse off? (not that I agree with that mentality).

I was of the impression that benefits should be there for those who need them/would significantly help out, not those who are just lazy ******* or well off enough not to 'really' need it.

The one thing I do agree on is that if anything like this was to go ahead, it should be per household, not person. It is madness to take it away from someone earning 45k (one working partner) but allow two on just below the threshold to keep it.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, I guess what Lisawrx is saying is that there are many more households that earn a modest income, well below £44k, that should be more entitled to help from the state than a high earners. If households on modest incomes can cope, those with higher incomes should definitely be able to cope without assistance from the state. Though there is a flaw in that it is not about what people earn and for many it is more to do with how much disposable income people have. Also it doesn't address the main issue of fairness where there are households of 2 earners on £40k pa. not exempt for CB.

I am part of the 15% of the population affected by this measure and I stand by what I said earlier. Bringing in a means test to determine whether households are entitled to CB or not would be costly to the tax payer to implement and in the long term pointless since CB will be replaced a universal credit system in the future. Their intentions are there, but clearly after the performance on Question Time, I'm less inclined to defend their decision as it clearly showed the implications have not been clearly thought through.

 

So you specify exactly which bits of your 40k tax bill goes on what, and ensure the child benefit you receive back comes directly from the tax you've paid? Very impressive.

What Lisa was trying to say is that she can't afford to have children, so has taken the decision not to have any at the moment. She earns 12k a year, and part of the tax she pays goes in some way towards paying child benefit to people on 40k a year who have children.

How is that fair?

Like I said in an earlier post, I would scrap child benefit for anyone but the poorest, and give the saving back as a tax reduction to everyone. That way Lisa wouldn't be contributing anything to anyone else's kids, and we'd all have more take home pay to spend as we choose.

 

All collected taxes from individuals are put in to a "pot" as it were. There is nothing to govern who's individual tax goes to whatever the government decides to spend it on. There is no distiction, whether they be childless modest income earners or high earners with 3 kids, where an individuals tax goes. For all you know the tax you paid could have gone someway to enlarging someone's breasts!

 

I see what you mean now!!

 

For all you know the tax you paid could have gone someway to enlarging someone's breasts![/QUOTE]

Then I demand to see said Breasts .
I paid for them therefore I need to inspect the quality !!!!

 

Knock yourself out!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-BOOB-JOB.html

 

I identify with Lisa's comments, I earn over the threshold by about 5 grand, we have three kids and we are doing ok, however we go overdrawn by a bit more each month, mainly as the wife earns very little (but costs a lot ), the kids cost a fortune to feed, clothe, send on school trips and all the other little ways they hammer your finances.

I can sort of get my head round not getting CB for the greater good, but its coming out of the bit of spare cash we have each month, further belt tightening required, ok I get it but that money as said comes off our little bit of spends, our outgoings are still the same (and rising), yet for example two wage earners on 80k combined otherwise the same as us with the same standing costs but much more disposable income would keep the £170 a month for their three kids, so our limited disposable income gets cut and their higher ammount stays the same.

I dont know how many families are in that situation, I suspect quite a few.

I pay in a fair whack of tax each month, I kind of saw CB as a bit of tax relief for having kids, an acknowledgement of the fact we are raising the next generation of tax payers, if we didnt have any kids we would be pretty well off on my wages, as it is, in terms of cash in versus cash out im fairly skint at the moment.

I wonder when the government will just take every penny anyone "middle class" earns ?

There will be a knock on, I am looking for stuff to cancel, stuff like Gas insurance, Autocar Subs, Sky, my small monthly donation to the British Red Cross.

 

+1 for Jacko's post. In exactly the same boat, but two kids.

If you earn over 44k you loose CB. But if you're a multi millionaire, and over 60, you qualify for winter fuel allowance.
I must look up the definition of "fair".

 

Yes, my fahter in law fits that bill, he says he uses the payment to heat his swimming pool

I suspect he just gets given it, he hasnt requested it and finds it bemusing that he does get it just based on his age.

 

Never thought I was particularly thick, no. The way you word that sounds like you think your tax only covers child benefit though. I know that's not what you mean though, because you're not thick, are you?

I won't bother explaining it again, as one, you seem to struggle to understand what I'm saying, and two, you seem a bit of a tw*t to be honest.

Lisa - I understand what you're saying, and think that it is a shame you can't afford to have children if that's what you want. But respect you very much for deciding you can't afford them and not just having them without any thought, like a lot of scroungers would.

 

They do, it just appears with their regular payments, they don't have to do anything or apply for it. My father and in-laws get it and neither needs it (especially with their winter holidays in hot destinations).

To be honest both of them were expecting to loose it (still might I suppose) or at the very least be only for the needy.

Remind me who brought that little gem in?

 

Yet another well reasoned post Lisa.

Les

 

I can see both points here, what I think B2ZSPS is saying, and I agree is that his tax payments cover several times over anything he gets back, its all disjointed and gets munged into one big pot but when it is all worked out, net result is he still contribues more to the tax take than someone on a lower wage, you cant really identify which pound was yours but you can see what you have contributed versus what you got back from the big pot.

 

Totally agree and this illustrates my earlier comment well.

 

Maybe you should read the rest as that comment was just a tiny point and was only me assuming what I thought she probably meant given (as I said) I didn't see the programme.

But while we are on, I'm not saying I personally feel I'm paying for your kids but I think the point is all tax made goes into one pot and gets redistributed, you don't pick and choose where what goes. If you didn't have children, part of your huge contribution would be going to other peoples kids . Granted you pay more money in tax obviously than me, but out of what I do pay, I get nothing back so my pennies are going somewhere... Child benefit is just that, not a tax back, everyone gets the same from the scroungers up regardless of what they do or do not earn. I am not for one second saying that your contribution doesn't cover what you get back, I was merely summising what I thought she meant.

The worst part is, I never even said I thought this should go ahead.

 

Well we have discussed this topic,the truth of the matter the system is not fair,people earning 40k dont need child allowance it is time for everyone to cut back take the slack and get this country back on its feet.We are paying the price for bad past government greedy gambling bankers so once again we have to cut back,cut the waste and the w@@kers out lets get on with it and stop moaning.Our social system is out of touch,our laws are out of date,too many fat ***** at the top of the pile creaming the rest of us reminds me of George Orwells Animal Farm.It is true this is the only book other than repair manuals I have read in my life from cover to cover,ps I have O level in English

 

Greg, that's true but some animals shouldn't be more equal than others who are already more equal.

 

Fair enough.

I do however totally agree with your second comment. An issue that really makes my blood boil.

 

40 grand a year nets you about £2500 a month,

So, a family with three kids and a mortgage and no other income, its not a vast amount once you take off, and remember this is for 5 people

Mortgage Say £700
Heat/Light £100
Water £40
Council Tax £150
Clothing £100
Food £400
Cleaning Products etc £50
Phone £30
Pension £160
House Insurance £50
Car Tax - MOT - Insurance - Maintenance £100
Dentistry £30
House Maintenance £50
TV Licence £12

So, there is £2000 or so to run a home for 5 people and one modest car, anything that could be considered extra, occasional or luxury,

Holidays
Loan repayments (cars etc)
Pet expenses
Major repairs to home or car
Home improvements
School trips
Birthdays and Christmas
Hobbies
Eating out
Attending weddings or other family event, i.e. obligations you cant avoid.
Replacing or buying furniture
Replacing Washers or Freezers
Internet/computer
Entertainment
Decorating
Eyecare, glasses, lenses, opticians fees



Not exactly living a champagne lifestyle someone on 40k

 

Like my parents who were pretty poor did, you have to fit your expenses to your income. In their case they had to make many large sacrifices.

Les

 

The research by the Office for National Statistics found that the average UK citizen was paying £52 a week on mortgages, £24 on council tax and other charges , a lot less than your figures show.

Chip

 

£52 a week for a mortgage, I wish.