No that's right you don't need to dress children in designer gear, neither do you have to give them nice treats or presents and you can just feed them on porridge. As a parent I do all that I can to give them the best quality of life that I can afford and I gladly make sacrifices for them, and yes this is my choice.

If you've read my previous posts, I've already said I would gladly give up CB for a complete reform of the benefit system despite the unfairness. No one here has said that it is a god given right to claim CB and you are clearly deluded if you think you have somehow contributed for the upbringing my children. Come back when you're a parent, then you might be able to give a more rational opinion instead of they "why should I pay for your kids" line of argument. I guarantee you your opinions will change when you're holding one of your own in your arms.

 

It seems a bit churlish to mention it (because it's not something I personally begrudge in the slightest), but isn't every childless tax-payer already subsidizing other people's kids to some extent, by the contribution they make towards the govt. education and NHS budgets?

 

+1

 

No more than when they start work and pay taxes to fund the NHS and state pensions, pension credits, attendance allowance, winter fuel allowance, cold weather allowance, disabled badges etc. in your retirement. Though they will be more heavily burdened since UK's population is aging rapidly. The number of people of state pension age is projected to increase by 28 per cent from 12.2 million to 15.6 million by 2035

 

Similarly, those parents who send their kids to private schools and have private health insurance.

Still paying towards the NHS and state education.
(I know, they still use the NHS at first point, i.e GP)

 

Yep, all three of ours went private, courtesy of the in laws, not my idea so again more money spent, money that saves the system three school places, I am not really an advocate of private education but I couldn't really say no, I wasn't asked if the truth is told !

 

Does martyrdom go hand in hand with parenthood?

 

yep, sure does

I have 5 kids and am nailed to the cross most nights

 

That's the reason why you've got five kids....



(For the record, my kids go to a state skool )

 

actually, on topic

I asked the wifey what we got for CB (for 5 kids) and when she told me I said

"wow, that's nearly the cost of a skiing holiday"

it will be irritating to lose it

 

Yes, an irritant for sure, but 2 kids worth only gets you a wet week caravaning in north Wales.

 

lol

i would say, "you know what you have to do"

but I suppose it is a bit late now

anyway, 2 things in life you never regret,

jumping in the swimming pool and having kids -- an initial shock and then joy all the way

 

I think some people are losing sight of the real issue here. It's not all about whether a family completely relies on the benefit, it's the unfairness. As I understand it, a couple earning almost double can still receive it, so long as neither earns above the threshold individually, and it does nothing to stop those at the other end popping out more and more kids to get more in benefits. Even those who think 50k is more than enough to raise a family must see that this is unfair. Even I can.

Perhaps, and I did used to hold this view myself. However, I do now take on board where people are coming from, in that we don't get to pick and choose where we say our individual taxes go, just because we get frustrated by some of the spending. Whether that be on the benefits system as a whole, this topic, wars, international aid, so on.... There will always be something each and every tax payer begrudges their money going towards. Maybe instead of people getting irate at others all of the time, they should just decide what they are happy to pay for, and just tell themselves that is where their particular contribution goes

(btw, I don't have kids)

 

You sound like my old man, he compares it to a new motorbike or holiday. Thing is, it gets taken up in expenses when I spend it, I don't save it up, it's just there subsidising the pitiful income I get because I have decided to look after my kids.

 

yes, the policy does seem anti family

we made the decision that my wife would not go back to work when we started having a family; she did have a very well paid job in the fashion industry as a knitwear designer

but we think our children have benefited from it hugely, both directly and indirectly

 

So what do we do about it, apart from moan.

I am starting to write to our local MP, and I guess I should also pen a letter to 10 downing street and get some answers. I imagine it will do no good, but I don't see how we can just accept it.

It's not bloody fair.

 

Really, instead of upping the amount of tax generated by adding new taxes and by reducing help where its needed, the Gov. should be looking at where it is over spending and misusing the revenue it currently receives.

 

I feel that strongly about it too that I was considering the same, although having never written to an MP before I need to look into who and where I send it to, apart from No10!

 

What isn't fair?

That a couple both on just shy of 50K each stay on the the train whereas a couple with one earner on over 50K get booted off.

Or child benefit.


I'm still wondering if you lot are serious or this is like one of the over-dinner sketches on Bremner, Bird and Fortune.

 

I don't live with 'mummy and daddy' not done for over 12 years. I sold the Subaru, as it was a money pit, and was throwing money at it. Household bills etc went up over the years, so I sold it to compensate for this. I now drive a very dull Lexus, but it does the job of getting us about. Its called adjusting to your limits. I suggest you do the same, and maybe send the good woman out to work whilst your at it.

 

This.

There are fairer ways.

Cancel it all together.
First child only.
Joint income

What about step children? Should a family lose it's benefit when the over 50k earner and child are not related? Should the absent parent pay the difference?

It's poorly thought out.

 

A £50K salary in central London is nothing, and certainly wouldn't get you a house there, but in Middlesborough you'd be the richest guy in the street!

 

Once again showing you don't have an effing clue. We don't have any flash cars, my Wife's car cost £1250 and can't get much cheaper than that with low miles and reliability. Her car is 2003 and mine 2005 so no I don't spend lots on our cars as I can't afford to. As for sending my Wife out to work LOL just shows what total lack of understanding you have of the real World.

Child care is outrageously expensive and she would need to walk straight into a job of over £20k a year just to pay for it and have nothing left over. And by doing so our children would be off loaded for someone else to bring up which goes totally against what we want for our children. She can't even find a part time job of an evening because there are so many applicants for just one vacancy whether it be in a supermarket or at McDonalds, she has been looking and is still looking and applying.

As you don't have children you have absolutely no idea what it involves and your replies couldn't demonstrate that any clearer.

 

Quite, I wonder how many of these people thinking £50k for a family's sole earner is huge money live up North. I live in the South East corner and it costs a fortune to live here. I am far worse off than a couple who earn £25k a year each because of the tax thresholds and the benefits they are entitled to being on a much lower salary each.

The benefits system should be based on total household income vs number of children and then the system would be fair.

 

Fair enough, I agree with you in that the single/combined income discrepancy is blatantly wrong.
As I've made plain, I would scrap the majority of benefits and lower the rates/thresholds of income tax. That way everybody gets to make their own choices and accept the cost of those decisions. As it is the system in general discriminates against those who work hard on a decent wage, pay all their taxes, make an effort to eat and drink well and exercise to stay healthy, and of course don't have children. Suffice to say I have just described myself.
I don't suggest anyone here fits this category, but I would very much like the system to treat those who abuse it as what they are and deal with them accordingly (something painful would suffice). This of course will never happen because we are far too civilised (read 'stupid') to appreciate where we are headed. Unfortunately the more dumb/scum an individual is the larger the number of children they seem to have.


If we could only sterilize all the morons then you lot on 50K+ could probably keep all your benefits.

 

So, prey tell - how much out of pocket will you be per month?

 

We are all subsidising something one way or another the driver, the smoker, the drinker, the gambler, the saver, the parents etc etc, take your pick some of us are all of the above but most of us are some of the above and all cough up in one form or another.

And I agree the new legislatioin is screwed up, I would more than happily take vouchers, it's not like I see my salary anyway it goes straight into our account and I may see £20 a month if I'm lucky. The most important thing to me is paying the mortgage feeding my kids and giving them a good stable upbringing. My time wil come again when they've grown up and there wil be a 6.2 V8 on the drive rather than a diesel estate

 

I really find it very difficult to understand why the CAP is dependant on the amount earned by one person in the family.

Why they can't take the total income for the family from all those who are earning and use that as a basis for a CAP or not is totally beyond me. What kind of logic is that I wonder.

Les

 

And how much out of pocket will you be each month? I tell you how much, a big fat ZERO, that's how much. I can't see how this has any relevance.

 

Exactly. It's fcucking stupid. A family with one earner earning £51k gets nothing. Another family earning say £45k + £35k get get child benefit.

It's the logic of that shower of a government that's who.