Had Lord Ashcroft, that up standing Tory, paid his dues (like the rest of us) then we wouldn't need to do any tinkering with Child Benefit.

 

They should also charge parents for having children, not give them money.

 

I tell you what, stop all the middle class and hard working people from having kids and see where the country is in 2 generations, because it will never be a good time to have kids as there will always be something else to spend our money on and we can control the birthrate. It's a moral duty to have kids if you have a work ethic and can do so! Otherwise we'll end up with a pyramid with so few at the top and too many at the bottom to sustain the economy.

IMHO of course!!

And davyboy's point about step-families is real. I do not earn enough to pay high rate tax, but I will be penalised. Yet again, the step-dad will have to step in to make up the shortfall which is not fair.

 

+1 and better put than i could have

 

Did you see that Labour MP speaking the other day, saying they should drop the monthly payout for a one off £20k lump sum at the child's birth..


That'll not encourage the chav scum to breed like rabbits will it...

Sometimes I wonder if these politicians are in touch with reality..

Plus we (as a family) will be loosing the benefit, and yes it's not "needed" to secure the child's minimal upkeep, but it's being saved in an account so they can put towards their education at a later time..

 

Getting old isn't a choice, funding adequately for retirement is. Saying you shouldn't have child benefit because why should others pay for your kids is similar to saying you shouldn't have the old age pension because you should have funded your retirement better and not blown it on fast cars and fizzy pop.

That made me LOL, lets blame the entire mess that is child benefit on some toff who worked the system.

 

A moral duty???? FFS what a load of crap.

Anyway you won't change my viewpoint especially if you quote Davyboy at me LOL!

 

Well this just sucks

It represents a pretty big tax increase for me, whilst all the time I get fleeced for everyone elses kids & public sector pensions. Once more the middle class are the whipping boys

Thanks chancellor nice one

 

Sorry, but you are still forgetting that having kids is a choice whereas growing old isn't. Sure there will be the odd person who had the ability to fund their retirement better and didn't, but most of those who can do and those that can't rely on the state pension which if we weren't paying all this money to people who can't keep their dicks in their pants or their legs shut when financially, at least, they should would be a damn sight more reasonable.

 

Just the odd one......?

 

There are millions who haven't funded their retirements!

The children of today will have to pay for them ...

 

The bar of entry into the “winner takes all society” has just been raised a tad – that’s all

The middle classes will be hit and hit again, wealth will move slightly further up the scale – to look into the future just look at the USA

The poor will become a true underclass (as in the USA) and the middle earners will sit uneasily just above them -- loose your job and hello poverty

as I posted on an earlier thread anyone on less than 90k PA is "economic cannon fodder"

 

No there were millions who had and then Gordon Brown arrived

 

Absolutely spot on

 

+1 and another +1 for F1 fans last post as well

 

There you go flouting your wealth again i blame immigration and the NL party myself!

 

No need to apologise, I haven't forgotten

My point is that you want to remove child benefit because of those that abuse the system and have baby after baby they can't afford. Therefore, you should also stop state pension for those that couldn't be bothered to fund their retirement.

"The odd person" is being hopeful. Our generation will see the worst pensioner poverty in history.

 

Your parents had you didn't they?

 

It's your not you're. If you are going to try and be clever at least learn some basic grammar

 

Well, davyboy's my husband, so in this case, I agree with him.

 

No I want to remove child benefit for everyone because, like fancy cars and big TVs, kids are a luxury that if you can't afford your shouldn't have.

 

Really??? I didn't know that

Anyway you agree with him because he is your husband? Can you not think for yourself then or doesn't he let you?

 

I can think for myself, I can assure you of that.

However, he married me and took on my daughter. Now he is going to have to stump up more to look after her because he has a good job which is OK paid. She is nothing to do with him in legal terms, he has no responsibility to her at all, yet I lose £80 per month. It may not be much to you mega earners, but £80 a month means I don't burden the CSA with a new claim from her dad. He has 3 kids and even though I don't know how much he earns, he will probably still be able to get CB. Is that fair? Do I metaphorically "screw" him for more money? Do I cost the taxpayer more money by going through the CSA? Is it fair?

 

I thought CB was paid directly to the mother Claire? (The whole reason it's lasted this long as a benefit... making sure the mother gets the money not some random partner).. was I wrong?

 

give it a rest pete will ya. smart accountants saved him a packet. thats what they are paid to do.

 

Yes, it does. But I am going to lose it now due to having a husband who earns over the threshold. He is her step-dad, has no parental responsibility but affects the CB I get for her.

 

In that case you are effectively saying that those under a certain wage should not be allowed to have children.

What do you do with those children that are born into poverty? Your not going to give benefits to the family so what do you do with them?





I would point out that the dictator in me would only grant children to those that have completed a minimum term of national service (moral fibre, responsibility) but it would never work just the same as taking away benefits from children.



Honestly, I really can't see this making law without some major tweeks. Its been rushed out in time for the party conference and has had its glaring mistakes pointed out.

 

Jesus, chill out. Everyone seems to be out to get 'one-up' on the previous poster.
So what if I made a mistate? Am I here just to please you? Am i ****!

 

Have you been watching Starship Troopers ??

 

Clare, despite my sometimes smart arsed comments I am not an unreasonable person, but in my opinion there should be no such thing as CB for the reasons I have stated.

In your case IMO your previous partner has a duty to support your daughter's upbringing regardless of any CB system.

While I can see your point as regards the new CB plans to a certain extent, surely you too can see there is an element of 'you have made your bed, now lie in it'. At least you have a husband and one with a seemingly good job, some may say you are one of the lucky ones.

To me a system whereby a benefit is paid as and when it is needed to parents/guardians would seem a better option than just blanket paying CB per child until they are 16.