This is just going after the easy target and will not even make a dent in the £200 billion a year social protection bill.

 

Or if you can't really afford them and continue your chosen lifestyle then either do not have children OR make the necessary sacrifices to said lifesyle. This is what me and my wife to be shall do.

 

You think the average person with 2 kids gets £2000+ per annum taken out of his tax bill and paid back to him as child benefit?

I would like to see that statistic proven.

 

Agree with first point albeit not second. I've paid my taxes, NI etc etc only to keep getting the rug pulled from under me re allowances yet all the worthless fops / chavs continue to "pop one out" & milk the system my prediction is riots in the streets a la Poll Tax chaos ...

This thread will run & run

TX.

 

The spare money left over from my Council Tax after they sometimes empty my three different coloured bins ,is given back as my Child Benefit I presume .!!!!

Thats how I see it .Then the Tax they take from my pay is for the Public Sector Pensions .!!!!!
Correct !!??

 

As with any project, you simply have to start somewhere. Anyway, my guesstimated 400 million a WEEK would make a nice 10% dent in it!

 

This seems to have turned into a row over people on benefits who this change will have no effect on....

This change will only affect families if one parent earns over 44k.

If you have 2 kids and both work (one earns 45k) you'll be £1700 a year
worse off.

That's not much less than a month's wages for those on that salary (after tax, pension etc)

 

And back to my original point.

Shouldn't you only get old if you can afford to do so?

5t.

 

This is the sort of thing that annoys people.

If child benefit didn't exist, people would still have children regardless of their financial circumstances. Young girls don't get pregnant because they will get extra cash, it happens for a number of reasons, the big one being we are all to bloody PC in this country to provide a proper sex education. You still get girls who think that having sex for the first time can't get you pregnant, or if he pulls out. It's madness.
Then you have these people falling into the trap of living in council accomodation and claiming what they can. The cycle continues throught their family.

Stopping the money away won't stop pregnacies, it will just result in other problems such as abortion rates rising, or more unwanted and neglected children being produced.

Look at it from another perspective, two people who have always worked, live in their two bed semi, they have a baby. The mother goes back part time and life is great. They have a son almost 7 months old, when they find out they are expecting another. This babybis a girl, so the two bed semi is not going to work.

The mother quits work as two lots of childcare are not affordable. On top of that they extend the house to a 4 bed with a garage, all on one set of 'average wages'.

No free 'upgrade' no subsadised bills or vouchers to provide a healthy diet.

Child benefits under such hard circumstances don't really do much, and if it would make one head turn, or make a bit if a difference, I would give it back.

 

This is the sort of thing that annoys people.

If child benefit didn't exist, people would still have children regardless of their financial circumstances. Young girls don't get pregnant because they will get extra cash, it happens for a number of reasons, the big one being we are all to bloody PC in this country to provide a proper sex education. You still get girls who think that having sex for the first time can't get you pregnant, or if he pulls out. It's madness.
Then you have these people falling into the trap of living in council accomodation and claiming what they can. The cycle continues throught their family.

Stopping the money away won't stop pregnacies, it will just result in other problems such as abortion rates rising, or more unwanted and neglected children being produced.

Look at it from another perspective, two people who have always worked, live in their two bed semi, they have a baby. The mother goes back part time and life is great. They have a son almost 7 months old, when they find out they are expecting another. This babybis a girl, so the two bed semi is not going to work.

The mother quits work as two lots of childcare are not affordable. On top of that they extend the house to a 4 bed with a garage, all on one set of 'average wages'.

No free 'upgrade' no subsadised bills or vouchers to provide a healthy diet.

Child benefits under such hard circumstances don't really do much, and if it would make one head turn, or make a bit if a difference, I would give it back.

 

No but all the years they've been paying taxes before the child comes along should help cover it.

 

It's the steady erosion that bothers me fella. When you've paid a lot of money in taxes etc over the years it is galling in the extreme to see money being wasted by the Govt (loafers living at the taxpayers expense, civil servants on £100k+ p/a etc) whilst personal allowances are dropped or removed all together.

Do you think they won't miss £1700?

TX.

 

at last some sense

 

Also, people do play their families and finance around the prevailing conditions, Child benefit is a factor in that decision, it would be a fair assumption in the last thirty, forty or more years that you would get a small ammount of money each week to help with the cost of having a child, it might not make all the difference but it would contribute and now, due to the state the economy is in its being removed, I can deal with it, its annoying and will cause some tightening of the belt but it wont kill me and see it is perhaps neccessary.

What will kill me is when I see more aid going out, more wastage and the same old wasters and plebs getting the handouts.

 

As is Mr O'Brian, the mrs and I are also bringing a new life into the world sometime next year. We have been trying for 2 years now so have had plenty of time to do the maths. Our combined income is just shy of 45k pa, but neither of us earns anywhere near £44k on our own. £80.00 a month does make a difference to us, like it or not. We have also worked out our budget with child benifit in mind.

And as for Stu, my God where on earth are you coming from?? You do realise why child benifit exists don't you? To make sure that the child doesn't go with out? You know, protecting the countries future investment??

I do think it should be done on household income though and not single income. Yes, I know we would lose out, but how is it fair that a single parent earning £50k a year gets less benifits than a family with an income of £80k a year? When you ask for a loan the bank asks the household income income figure, so I can't see why it is so hard for the government to do the same thing!
Maybe you should only be able to claim if you actually work!

 

I fail to understand why the benefit is going to be on individual income and not joint household. This would at least stop the silly 44 no, 80 joint, yes.

I suspect that as this is due in 2013 there will be some changes made - if not quietly swept under the carpet altogether.

 

In other news, did anyone see the new law that if one of your employees over hears two other employees slagging off a third, the employer can be held responsible and sued by the ear-wigging employee for some human rights mumbo jumbo.

 

Or shouldn't you only get ill if you can afford to? Or shouldn't you only get mugged or your house set on fire if you can afford to?

 

Ive read just about all the above responses, and my theory is; If you can afford kids then great, budget to do so on your wage only without pushing yourself to your financial limit. Don't expect hands out from the goverment just becuase you have children, and certainly don't budget your future on such had outs.

Im 32 and have two children (5yrs and 3yrs), but when we were trying for a 2nd child 4yrs ago we planned to move house so we had the room and luxury to enjoy life with two children whilst still being able 'Afford' the up-keep of two growing kids anf the ever increasing costs of living. Things suddenly changed in 2007 when my lad was born brain damaged, a whole new life for all our family emerged. I started a 2nd job, my lass took full responsibilty (full time carer) for my son and I worked all hours god send to help his future be bright, and as such the Child Benifits suddenly ceased...... I made some calls and it suddenly started again given the nature of our situation, and eventually after 2yrs the mrs managed to get back to work with the help of a local school. He is now 'Full time' at a special needs school even at the age of 3 so it means the mrs can still earn a crust and we are still entitled to Child Benifit although i never really budgeted for it.

Our joint income is somewhere around 34 - 38k depending on how well my own business is doing. We obviously receive other financial help for our son which is not of ^^ topic.

Without wanting to cause to much of a stir to those thinking of having children or those that are on the verge of bringing new life, here is an article that most will have read over and over each year as the cost increases.

The average cost of raising a child to the age of 21 has crashed through the £200,000 barrier for the first time according to research published today.

The latest annual report from the UK's largest friendly society, LV=, reveals that parents are typically shelling out £9,610 a year to feed, clothe and educate each new member of their family. The new total of £201,809 does not include private school fees but confirms that even a state education can set families back thousands of pounds in uniforms, sports equipment and extra costs such as school trips. In total, education-related costs added up to an average of £52,881. The report shows that the cost of raising a child has increased by an inflation-busting 4% since January last year, and is up 43% over the seven years since the survey began in 2003

Rob

 

I always thought we needed parents to have kids, so that when they grow up, they'll pay tax and enable the Govt to pay it's way?

Maybe some on here would prefer we didn't have kids, and the Govt allow more immigrants in?














Thought not.

 

Hmm, the only thing I don't like is...

He confirmed the cut would hit homes with a single or two high earners but families with two parents on incomes up to £44,000 - which might add up together to over £80,000 - would keep the benefit.

The chancellor defended this by saying his plan was "the most straightforward" option - which would avoid across the board means testing.

Currently my wife is not a high earner (actually has only just gone back to work after looking after our kids when young) and recieves the child benefit. I am a high earner.

If the government have enough checks to know that I am a high earner (when my wife recieves the benefit) and therefore we as a family should not get the benefit. Then it would only take a simple calculation to add two wages together.

 

dp

 

I have many associates around the age of 20/21 who mummy and daddy still look after as they live at home. I started fending for myself at 15 and by 17 was out the door.

Do parents really want to have their sprogs around at this age if they are healthy willing and able to look after themselves?

 

and crucially only paid to the "mother" of the child/children (to avoid going to feckless fathers spunking it on booze and ****)

 

Also, people do play their families and finance around the prevailing conditions, Child benefit is a factor in that decision, it would be a fair assumption in the last thirty, forty or more years that you would get a small ammount of money each week to help with the cost of having a child, it might not make all the difference but it would contribute and now, due to the state the economy is in its being removed, I can deal with it, its annoying and will cause some tightening of the belt but it wont kill me and see it is perhaps neccessary.

What will kill me is when I see more aid going out, more wastage and the same old wasters and plebs getting the handouts.

 

Getting old is not a choice, having kids is!

 

Sucks

 

I've got an idea ......

Why don't we, on say January 1st 2011, abolish ALL benefits entirely?, every single one.

See what falls out the bottom and help those who can genuinely show real hardship ... not having SKY does not qualify as hardship!

 

^^ Aligns with 20% VAT so will go down a storm

TX.

 

just curious to know why you direct so much ire downwards

tax avoidance (legal) costs HMRC many many times what the handouts (legal) cost the Government