Just to add, I would have some sympathy for a couple who genuinely need help from the state to bring up one or perhaps two children in a responsible manner.
But if they also think it's OK to shell out £30/month on a mobile phone and/or £35/month on a Sky package whilst getting handouts then Game Over.

It seems to me that too many believe having children is a right, and do so without considering the consequences. Selfish springs to mind.

 

The tax system just doesn't work like that though. Your taxes go into a big pot with everyone elses and the pot is then spent as the government sees fit, allowing of course for the massive obligations it has that it can't do much about.
Under your premise, where does the benefit paid out to unemployed parents come from?

 

His taxes surely?

If he pays £10k per annum into the system directly from his salary and only takes £2k back out in child benefit then he is supporting the state by £8k. That £8k then goes to pay for someone elses housing benefit/Job seekers allowance, whatever the benefit may be.

It's a sad state of affairs and a failing in life if you are dependent on others for your existence. Standing on your own 2 feet spring to mind, there are too many in this country on the take.

 

Exactly.

 

This. This is what I see every single day. People moaning about not being able to afford basics, food shopping etc, and rely on child benifits to get by, and then whip out an iphone to make a call. I'm sorry, but if your earning over 50k per year, I don't see why you need to 'rely' on hand outs. Nothing more than greed.

 

I think that is a perfectly reasonable summing up of the whole business.

Les

 

You really don't get it do you, I don't get any "handouts", we get effectively a tax break, recognition that, having kids we have less disposable income as we have to spend more to live, it is society acknowledging this, a couple with our income and no kids dont need as much money simply to live therefore they dont get the benefit, should they have kids they will, everyone was eligible.

It isn't greed, if we are so greedy we wouldn't have kids, my income and disposable income would be plenty, we can probably do without it now my wife is working but had she not been we would be seriously worried.

The system really does count against the traditional family of two or three kids, mum at home and dad earning good money to look after them, I get a pay rise and I pay 40 percent tax, whatever NI is, it gets pension taken off so I end up with perhaps £500 of a £1000 pound increase, I cant use my wifes tax allowance, we lose the child benefit so it is kicks in the bollocks all around, I spent years doing exams and learning, I went to college etc to get a better job but now I have hit a ceiling on my income, between 50 and 60 k you are screwed, unlikely to go any higher, any increase gets eaten up in the aforementioned, kids still need stuff, the bills go up (10.8 percent on my £210 a month energy bill), the cooker screwed up so theres £300. On 50k you clear three grand or so a month, it doesn't go very far, £188 make a big difference as a lot of it you can do nothing about, heat, light, mortgage, fuel, food, clothing.

 

Your view of things actually makes me think of the "other end" of society. We don't have Sky or iPhones etc. My husband works in IT and gets a company phone luckily. But it annoys me too when I see people on benefits with iPhones, Sky and plasma TVs. We have to plan spending, we don't just get things. Perhaps it's the fact they don't have overheads like mortgages etc. which tip the balance. Not really fair is it?

P.s. on a side note for the experts, I have a part-time job where I don't pay tax or NI. If we say we don't want the CB any more, how do I ensure my NI contributions are still being counted which I would get if I was getting it?

 

I think the crux of the problem with benefits is that it is cash, a universal, all purpose method to purchase whatever you want, be it baby milk, nappies, kids clothes or Smack, why do we give people the means to spend money destined to support them in their time of need on ****, gadgets, Booze, gambling, entertainment and drugs ?

I would be happy to take vouchers or a credit that is to be spent on stuff for the benefit of my kids, if I were on benefits due to not having a job I would be happy for any help I could get, ok bills might be tricky but in these connected days it cant be beyond the wit of man to create a system that doesn't allow us to sponsor bad habits.

It really annoyed me seeing on tv the other night the scumbags queued up at midnight waiting for their benefits to go in and then off to spend it in the pub, going to the pub is a luxury, I go once a week and have a pint, usually one, maybe two and then leave.

 

??

 

We hardly ever go out! I can't remember the last time I had a drink in a pub... Maybe on our wedding anniversary in August!

I agree Jacko, I have often asked how poor people can afford to smoke and drink. I bloody well couldn't!

 

[QUOTE]
Well the family with no children will have a hell of a lot more disposable income that the one with children. As it cost a mind-boggling average of £200k to bring up a child.

So those who either choose not to or physically cannot contribute to the continuation of the human race have a massive financial advantage over those who do.

 

I did a job this morning in **** hole end of Sheffield.

They wanted their 51" plasma fitting on the chimney, they don't work and coughed up £186 just like that for it!

We don't have that spare weekly to throw away so how do they manage, really pisses me off.

 

Now that is just showing off, putting a feckin great TV on the roof

 

[QUOTE=Martin2005;10852434]it doesn't cost that much, that figure is seriously inflated by people like yourself. You can kit out a child in primark for the whole year for about 3 quid. The ammount of food that we bin every night would feed another mouth. I also beg to differ on the 'massive financial advantage' just because you don't CHOOSE to have a child, doesn't mean you have money coming out of your ears. People live to within their means, weather you've got kids or not. I prefere to keep the motor industry going strong by spending riduculous amounts of cash on cars and luxury holidays. So no, theres no financial advatage, we chose not to have kids so we can do what we want in life. Selfish maybe, but its our god given right to make these decisions. I totally agree with JACKO's idea of being given tokens instead of actual cash, at least it would get to the child, and not spent on **** and beer tokens.

 

[QUOTE=classic Subaru Si;10852499]What do you mean 'people like me'? So you say I inflated a number (which I didn't, I actually under-called it), then you willfully exclaim that you can clothe a child for £3 a year (that doesn't even buy 1 school tie) a moronic response like that kind of undermines everything else you have to say on this subject

You clearly didn't understand my post, or its nature.

Reread what I posted, then rewrite your response please

 

I bet you weren't surprised. Even in Sutton/Kirkby, I went in to plenty of homes in which the occupants lived off benefits, yet had more expensive kit than I could dream of owning.

 

Ha ha @ the Primark comment.

I always think women who say they don't want kids are kidding themselves - no pun intended. They will want them eventually, it's nature and it will probably end up making them extremely unhappy, or looking for another partner. Yes, if you're in your 20s you may say this, but when 40 comes-a-knocking, she will change her mind, I guarantee it.

 

Nope it didn't see way too much which is a shame.

Might not have carpets or smells nice but hey!!

They have a nice tv on the wall to watch their £60 a month sky package

 

You have no kids and as such your comments clearly reflects this. You have absolutely no idea or understanding. If you do decide to have kids, you will look back on your comments and think, what a dick! I guarantee that even it you could spend £3 to clothe your child for a year, you would not and even if you were stupid enough, you would not feed a baby with food that you eat. With that in mind perhaps it's best you never have kids at all.

 

Nope, I just don't buy in to the bu11sh1t. You don't have to dress a child in designer gear, that is once again YOUR CHOICE. I also wasn't talking about babies when I mentioned food. I take it from your comments, you are another "I've had kids to keep the world turning, and now they wont pay me what I'm due" Get a grip, pay for your own kids!

 

It appears to me that we have a societal problem here, in that nowadays people are not prepared to make concessions (other than symbolic petty ones) as regards to their quality of life, in order to accomodate children. They ultimately want their cake and eat it. Still have that nice car, still go on foreign holidays, still eat out regularly etc.
Based on the guff you get from parents about how their kids have made them complete I would have thought suffering some hardships for that completeness and well-being was acceptable.
I cannot accept that a couple on 50K+ require financial help to bring up their children. How many have they got!
A text from someone earning 14K gross was read out on Radio5 this morning and said " How can a couple on over 50K need money from the state to help them pay for their children? Do they have solid gold dummies? "
What would you say to him?

 

Well said, the bloke is an utter **** with his attitude.

 

[QUOTE]More hogwash

You make massive concessions and sacrifices willingly and unquestioningly when you have kids.

Plus I don't expect the state to pay for my children, never have, never will.

My point was aimed at your comment about how unfair it was on high earner who have no children. Which is of course gibberish.

What we are actually talking about for higher earners equates to a small tax break. So instead of about £1.5k of the £30k tax I year back, I now end up worse off. Do you expect people to be happy with that situation?

 

I'd show him my payslip and then my spreadsheet of monthly costs and say there you go, not a ******* penny left at the end of the month. No Sky tv, no £35 a month phone contracts blah blah blah. After the direct debits/bills are paid I have £150 a week for petrol and food for 5 of us. That's because I don't earn £50-£60k salaried so there is no guarantee I will even earn the extra this year so I lose the 'benefit' (or as I see some of my tax back) but still have to survive on my basic and then hope I get some overtime come up. That then has to pay for Birthday's/Christmas/car maintenance bills so not like it can be banked to increase monthly income.

Some of you need to wake up and live in the real World instead of still living at home with Mummy and Daddy with your Subaru on the drive and realise what it costs to look after a family.

 

As usual the Govt have gone at this all wrong ... rather than beat up the "well off" yet again they should have just restricted it to the first or second child across the board. Hugely easier to manage than what they have now (means testing) and fairer imho. Having children should be encouraged of course (which must be the origin of this benefit) as without kids the human population would die out within a generation + who would pay for the upkeep of the ever increasing number of old f*ckers

TX.

 

I'm sorry, but you need to grow up. Your comments are immature and naive. You are describing a situation that only exist in your very narrow mind

 

Bust your nuts at school for 13 years, do the same at Uni for 4 years then work all hours that God sends (leave home at 6am get home at 8pm) for a further 20 years ... won't happen over night

TX.

PS not having a pop at "low" earners, just pointing out that a £55k salary does not drop through the letterbox one day by accident.

 

Totally agree with this. Support for up to 2 kids then nothing for any in addition to this. This would vastly decrease the amount of families that just churn out child after child by parents that earn more staying off work claiming benefits (usually Asthma although they still smoke 20 a day). "you know Sharon, if we have another kid we can demand a bigger house of the council"

 

£218k.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012...d-rises-218000

TX.