# Households with one income over 44k will lose Child Benefit



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

*child benefit*

Been watching the news - anyone else anxious about what might happen to child benefit?


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Nope, just daydreaming about earning over 44k a year.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

I have to say i am.

We lost our tax credit already which i kind of thought OK, thats not too bad if we have to sort out this problem but to lose the Ch benefit aswell is really pushing their luck IMO.

It is just realising my worse fears about a Tory Government TBH. Hit the good honest working families rather than those that have more money than they know what to do with 

This cut will affect our monthly budget


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

Does the same apply to single parent familys do you know?


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Excellent. When I was poor and had kids I got really fed up seeing the child benefit I needed to live on being used for hairdo`s by well-off friends. 
BTW - the benefit will still get paid. It`s just that it will then be reclaimed in tax. .


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Does the same apply to single parent familys do you know?


I would imagine it is applicable to any family earning over whatever they decide so yes i would imagine so.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Does the same apply to single parent familys do you know?


Yes it will. So you can have a couple both earning 40k and a combined household income of 80k still receiving their benefit. But if a single parent family earned 45k they would lose it.


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

Not being phased in gradually, won't kick in until 2013.

DT ~ Probably, if the single parent earnings take them into the 40% tax bracket.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

RAINYBOW said:


> I have to say i am.
> 
> We lost our tax credit already which i kind of thought OK, thats not too bad if we have to sort out this problem but to lose the Ch benefit aswell is really pushing their luck IMO.
> 
> ...


the bl**dy problem is Rainybow is that this country don't look after them that look after themselves! My daughter is on almost double that! She is already paying 40% tax and she does need her child allowance as she has to pay for child care etc! (single parent)

Now I don't mind betting that them who make the rules will continue doling out to all and sundry to them that have sh*tloads of kids knowing full well they will never be able to provide for em!

It makes me sick!
Sorry rant over!!


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> Excellent. When I was poor and had kids I got really fed up seeing the child benefit I needed to live on being used for hairdo`s by well-off friends.
> BTW - the benefit will still get paid. It`s just that it will then be reclaimed in tax. .


I do agree but i think £44k is too low, we live in a very expensive part of the country so although we earn just over that amount (and i mean "just" typical) we have very little "disposable" income.

I just dont understand why this Government are starting in the middle, why not raise the money we need from those who can really afford it, oh yeah because they are Tory and won't hit their own kind


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

jenniferx said:


> Yes it will. So you can have a couple both earning 40k and a combined household income of 80k still receiving their benefit. But if a single parent family earned 45k they would lose it.


Now that is the biggest blunder yet! Are they serious?
but hey! guess what! they just lost the next election ! AND I never thought I would hear myself say that!


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Makes me mad it does! You work hard, pay all of your taxes and National Insurances, don't ever claim a bean of the government then you get penalised.

Makes we want to go live some where else - some place gthat might appreciate us!


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

jenniferx said:


> Yes it will. So you can have a couple both earning 40k and a combined household income of 80k still receiving their benefit. But if a single parent family earned 45k they would lose it.


Surely it is on a combined income basis


----------



## kazschow (Oct 23, 2008)

The problem as I see it isn't the fact individuals earning over 44k will lose chil benefit, in fairness I think they should in this economic climate to enable those in need to have access to funds necessary.

however you could have two incomes in the household of 43k each a total of 86k/yr and you would still get child benefit, but the family with a sole earner of 44k would lose it, that doesn't seem at all fair, if they are going to means test a benefit at least do it fairly and equally on HOUSEHOLD income not one earner!!


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

gorgeous said:


> Makes me mad it does! You work hard, pay all of your taxes and National Insurances, don't ever claim a bean of the government then you get penalised.
> 
> Makes we want to go live some where else - some place gthat might appreciate us!


Thats how i feel about it.

Why bother, might aswell take myself "off" the books pick up some "cash" work where i can and make a tidy fortune out of e bay while signing on


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

It is not on joint income Rainy, just if one single income is above that figure.

Now whilst people say 44k is a lot of money, for certain parts of the Country it isn't. Cost of living etc is far greater.....

it is the people in the middle of the road so to speak that get hit again!


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> Surely it is on a combined income basis


Apparently not? They were discussing it on five live and said that it wasn't based on combined income.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

gorgeous said:


> Makes me mad it does! You work hard, pay all of your taxes and National Insurances, don't ever claim a bean of the government then you get penalised.
> 
> Makes we want to go live some where else - some place gthat might appreciate us!


Just happened to us Gorgeous - we have ZILCH income! living purely of our savings! But hey! I'mgoing look on the bright side! when we reach official retirement age we shall have spent up! And according to THIS government we shall be outta the brown stuff in eight years so they'll be plenty in the pot for me them!:thumbup:

Well thwy can't take my fantasies away can they!

Why don't they start with the prisons?


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

kazschow said:


> The problem as I see it isn't the fact individuals earning over 44k will lose chil benefit, in fairness I think they should in this economic climate to enable those in need to have access to funds necessary.
> 
> however you could have two incomes in the household of 43k each a total of 86k/yr and you would still get child benefit, but the family with a sole earner of 44k would lose it, that doesn't seem at all fair, if they are going to means test a benefit at least do it fairly and equally on HOUSEHOLD income not one earner!!


The thing is this money isn't going to go to the needy, there isn't going to be any "spare" money generated by this, it's just to pay off our debts 

When you see how the BIG companies in this country dodge paying business tax which could solve our problems then it makes me mad that average jo on the street has to solve the problem for the country !!! These companies turn HUGE profits, pay massive salaries to their top people and even more massive bonuses then use every trick in the book to stop paying tax


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

gorgeous said:


> It is not on joint income Rainy, just if one single income is above that figure.
> 
> Now whilst people say 44k is a lot of money, for certain parts of the Country it isn't. Cost of living etc is far greater.....
> 
> it is the people in the middle of the road so to speak that get hit again!





jenniferx said:


> Apparently not? They were discussing it on five live and said that it wasn't based on combined income.


That is fecking MENTAL !!!!!!! Oh well we might just keep ours then  But that is truly ridiculous !!!!!!


----------



## Gernella (Dec 14, 2008)

catz4m8z said:


> Nope, just daydreaming about earning over 44k a year.


Same here. I heard somebody moaning that because her children went to a private school she would not receive any form of benefit from the state so why should she pay towards state schools etc. I've got news for her, I paid for 45 years and I've got no children.


----------



## Leah84 (Jun 22, 2009)

we don`t even earn half of £44k per year, i can`t believe losing £20 a week would really affect anyone who earns over that when we manage to live on so much less


----------



## ClaireLily (Jul 8, 2008)

I was the sole earner while my OH was a student, I was earning 25k, I was able to pay the mortgage, bills, buy food and even have the occasional night out. If someone can't manage that on 44k I think the government should be putting them on money management courses.

My OH is now working and our combined income is bang on 44k, we just had our house double glazed, are getting married in Kenya next year and are off for a spa weekend in November. Now we are definitely not rolling in cash but we are careful and because of that we can afford our little luxuries, on top of that we also save £750 a month. I fail to see how anyone earning over this would miss 20 quid a week, unless their budgeting skills are poor!


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> The thing is this money isn't going to go to the needy, there isn't going to be any "spare" money generated by this, it's just to pay off our debts
> 
> When you see how the BIG companies in this country dodge paying business tax which could solve our problems then it makes me mad that average jo on the street has to solve the problem for the country !!! These companies turn HUGE profits, pay massive salaries to their top people and even more massive bonuses then use every trick in the book to stop paying tax


Have to disagree with you there Rainy, hubby works for one of these big firms (manufacturing) and I'm telling you its hard. Maybe the bankers are getting big bonuses as before but normal workers are being pinned to the floor just to keep their jobs.

I believe that industry can get us through this, big industry to a point but also small businesses but they need to government to support them not make things harder (simplify the tax system, dare I say come to their senses on maternity payments and paternity leave ).

I firmly believe that the deficit needs to be cut but why all the hurry? Some experts are saying that the government are rushing into making decisions and by cutting CB I think it proves that they are ... its the easy option for them.


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

ClaireLily said:


> I was the sole earner while my OH was a student, I was earning 25k, I was able to pay the mortgage, bills, buy food and even have the occasional night out. If someone can't manage that on 44k I think the government should be putting them on money management courses.
> 
> My OH is now working and our combined income is bang on 44k, we just had our house double glazed, are getting married in Kenya next year and are off for a spa weekend in November. Now we are definitely not rolling in cash but we are careful and because of that we can afford our little luxuries, on top of that we also save £750 a month. I fail to see how anyone earning over this would miss 20 quid a week, unless their budgeting skills are poor!





Leah84 said:


> we don`t even earn half of £44k per year, i can`t believe losing £20 a week would really affect anyone who earns over that when we manage to live on so much less


Totally agree with both of these statements, Im out of work atm, and OH earns *£11, 000 a year* we're not well off by any stretch of the imagination, and yes we struggle some months, but we still manage to feed ourselves, our animals, and keep afloat. How the hell can you not when your earning *4 times the amount we do*???? :confused1:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

:thumbup: Gosh this goverment have finaly done something right.:thumbup:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

With an average income in this country of £25K, I think it fair. £44K is a good income (or combined income). I needed every penny of my child benefit when bringing up my kids, which is what it should be for, not storing away as a nest egg for when the children are older as so many do.

Really, it was introduced as an income for mothers in the days before the worked, to ensure they had some money (as the husbands were the only earners). Those days are long gone, so it doesn't seem unreasonble to me to rethink it and only give it to those that need it.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

ok i can see an argument for capping child benefit for those over a certain income, but surely it should be based on joint household income?

How can it be fair that a couple could be earning £87,999 between them and keep the CHB, yet a single parent is only allowed to earn £43999?

WRONG!

What sort of incentive is that for single parent families to get a good carreer when the couple down the road can earn double and keep their CHB?


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

sid&kira said:


> Totally agree with both of these statements, Im out of work atm, and OH earns *£11, 000 a year* we're not well off by any stretch of the imagination, and yes we struggle some months, but we still manage to feed ourselves, our animals, and keep afloat. How the hell can you not when your earning *4 times the amount we do*???? :confused1:


Blimey you are doing well to manage on that!
Im having trouble seeing how people couldnt cope as well. Maybe the cost of living is way more oop north??? Coz down south that is still a bloomin' nice wage packet!!


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Could also be a married couple, the husband earns 45k whilst the Mother stays at home looking after the children.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> ok i can see an argument for capping child benefit for those over a certain income, but surely it should be based on joint household income?
> 
> How can it be fair that a couple could be earning £87,999 between them and keep the CHB, yet a single parent is only allowed to earn £43999


Have to agree with you there - didn't realise it was not on joint income. I suppose the difficulty is that it was always a benefit for the mother (pre women going out to work days) so there may be some complexity regarding joint income, easy when a couple are married, but not so when a couple aren't.


----------



## Allana (Jul 7, 2010)

billyboysmammy said:


> ok i can see an argument for capping child benefit for those over a certain income, but surely it should be based on joint household income?
> 
> *How can it be fair that a couple could be earning £87,999 between them and keep the CHB, yet a single parent is only allowed to earn £43999?*
> 
> ...


Hmmm this really concerns me that our goverment who are running our country manage to come up with that one!! 

Where on earth is the logic in that! 

44k is above average salary in my part of the world too.

x


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

westie~ma said:


> Have to disagree with you there Rainy, hubby works for one of these big firms (manufacturing) and I'm telling you its hard. Maybe the bankers are getting big bonuses as before but normal workers are being pinned to the floor just to keep their jobs.
> 
> I believe that industry can get us through this, big industry to a point but also small businesses but they need to government to support them not make things harder (simplify the tax system, dare I say come to their senses on maternity payments and paternity leave ).
> 
> I firmly believe that the deficit needs to be cut but why all the hurry? Some experts are saying that the government are rushing into making decisions and by cutting CB I think it proves that they are ... its the easy option for them.


I know  I meant the top bods not the workers and i see how these big companies generate alot of employment but the loopholes should be tightened up so they pay tax on their true profits before hitting hard working middle income families.

Also some might not realise but every 3 year old in the country is entitled to a free pre school place of 15 hours a week. This amounts to ALOT of money, will they be means testing that aswell ??? These children are often packed off to preschool while Mum catches up on her weekly Jeremy Kyle ?? Is that an "essential" then, why do women who stay at home to look after their children "need" 15 hours a week to themselves ???

Where next ??? Pensioners ???


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> *With an average income in this country of £25K, I think it fair. £44K is a good income (or combined income). * I needed every penny of my child benefit when bringing up my kids, which is what it should be for, not storing away as a nest egg for when the children are older as so many do.
> 
> Really, it was introduced as an income for mothers in the days before the worked, to ensure they had some money (as the husbands were the only earners). Those days are long gone, so it doesn't seem unreasonble to me to rethink it and only give it to those that need it.


It might be fair if it was on combined income but from what I have heard it will be based on a single wage.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

lymorelynn said:


> It might be fair if it was on combined income but from what I have heard it will be based on a single wage.


That is insane, that means as i claim the Ch Benefit i assume it will be based on my wage which is very low but my hubby could be on a mint  I bet its an administrative thing


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> That is insane, that means as i claim the Ch Benefit i assume it will be based on my wage which is very low but my hubby could be on a mint  I bet its an administrative thing


it is based on either wage, whomever earns the 45k or more.


----------



## kazschow (Oct 23, 2008)

RAINYBOW said:


> That is insane, that means as i claim the Ch Benefit i assume it will be based on my wage which is very low but my hubby could be on a mint  I bet its an administrative thing


No it's if one of the incomes is over the tax theshold, could be you or hubby, but if both are just under you would still get it.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> It might be fair if it was on combined income but from what I have heard it will be based on a single wage.


But an income of £44K is a good income regardless of whether 1 or 2 people earn it.

I think one of the difficulties with this is the number of unmarried people with children (not getting at them btw  ) but just think it through as how it would be workable. If married, then it is quite straightforward to track it, if not, then it becomes more difficult. Living at the same address would not indicate whether they were a couple, so how could a 'joint' income be assessed unless it relied on the honesty of those claiming.

Means tested benefits are always complicated and costly to administrate. I suspect that's why for so many years, millionaires have been able to claim child benefit the same way the poorest have. But in today's climate where there really isn't the money around, I do think this change is right and long overdue.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

gorgeous said:


> it is based on either wage, whomever earns the 45k or more.


So basically if one person earns more than 45K they don't get it irrespective of the second income ?? Bonkers


----------



## Amy&Ted (Jul 14, 2010)

RAINYBOW said:


> I know  I meant the top bods not the workers and i see how these big companies generate alot of employment but the loopholes should be tightened up so they pay tax on their true profits before hitting hard working middle income families.
> 
> *Also some might not realise but every 3 year old in the country is entitled to a free pre school place of 15 hours a week. This amounts to ALOT of money, will they be means testing that aswell ??? These children are often packed off to preschool while Mum catches up on her weekly Jeremy Kyle ?? Is that an "essential" then, why do women who stay at home to look after their children "need" 15 hours a week to themselves ??? *
> 
> Where next ??? Pensioners ???


My son used his 15 hours a week. It was to socialise him and introduce him to learning before he started school. NOT so i could watch Jeremy Kyle. I worked when he was at nursery.


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

£44k!
In my dreams.
I reckon you shouldnt get the full quota.That amount of money is more than enough.
Me and my partner only just get over £20k,and get along great.
If people live beyond their means,thats their own fault.
Benefits shouldnt be dependant upon.Thats how the country got in this mess.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Amy&Ted said:


> My son used his 15 hours a week. It was to socialise him and introduce him to learning before he started school. NOT so i could watch Jeremy Kyle. I worked when he was at nursery.


My daughter has 15 hours too  Re read my post  You worked when he was at nursery which IMO is great and the hours are a massive help but many many don't and just get 3 days off a week  I am just pointing out there are other areas of "waste" or unnecessary spending.

Surely a parent who choses *not *to work to stay at home and raise their kids doesn't need 15 hours free childcare a week (unless they are studying in which case i think that would be ok)

There are plenty of parent and toddler groups for socialisation


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Also some might not realise but every 3 year old in the country is entitled to a free pre school place of 15 hours a week. This amounts to ALOT of money, will they be means testing that aswell ???


Had no idea - is that a relatively recent thing - it certainly wasn't the case when my children were young. I separated when my youngest was 2 and struggled financially, but still managed to pay for a few nursery sessions a week.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Had no idea - is that a relatively recent thing - it certainly wasn't the case when my children were young. I separated when my youngest was 2 and struggled financially, but still managed to pay for a few nursery sessions a week.


The hours have just been increased to 15 but it was 12.5 hrs before and that goes back to when my son was 3 (he is 7 now). In some deprived areas it is from age 2. It is meant to encourage and help women back to work which it does and thats great BUT there are an awful lot who have no intention of working and IMO i think it should only be applicable if you work or are studying.


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> So basically if one person earns more than 45K they don't get it irrespective of the second income ?? Bonkers


why is that bonkers?? if you have 45K coming and and then a 2nd wage on top of that (however small) you are still doing a bloody lot better than a lot of other people!

I'd love to have a household income of 18K, 45K would end up with me rolling in the notes because I wouldnt know what else to do with them!! :lol:


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> why is that bonkers?? if you have 45K coming and and then a 2nd wage on top of that (however small) you are still doing a bloody lot better than a lot of other people!
> 
> I'd love to have a household income of 18K, 45K would end up with me rolling in the notes because I wouldnt know what else to do with them!! :lol:


Its bonkers because it means that families on £88K could still receive child benefit but those on 46k wouldn't 

That is bonkers wether you agree with the 45k limit or not


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> Its bonkers because it means that families on £88K could still receive child benefit but those on 46k wouldn't
> 
> That is bonkers wether you agree with the 45k limit or not


Oh right yea I get that, it should be on a household income rather than individual incomes :thumbup:


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> Oh right yea I get that, it should be on a household income rather than individual incomes :thumbup:


:lol: I agree


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

sid&kira said:


> why is that bonkers?? if you have 45K coming and and then a 2nd wage on top of that (however small) you are still doing a bloody lot better than a lot of other people!
> 
> I'd love to have a household income of 18K, 45K would end up with me rolling in the notes because I wouldnt know what else to do with them!! :lol:


Totally agree:thumbup:
Rich get richer,poor get poorer


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

and what if your kids have paper rounds??? what happens then??
its madness I tell ya, madness!!!:lol:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

It is bonkers, but can't quite see how they can administer it.

What would make more sense is to abolish it all together and increase child tax credits accordingly as that is a means tested benefit and based on household income not individual income. Would also mean one lot of admin and costs rather than two.

There would be uproar though


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I think that there are very few households that really need the child benefit in which to survive. 
I would scrap it all and save the country a fortune.
Why should we all pay for hairdressers, video games and pocket money for those with kids?
Those who are in dire straights have enough paths to source more money so I doubt if we would see children begging on the streets, or dying of malnutrition.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Sorry i havent read all posts BUT just out of curiosity how many people on here voted for torys?


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

When we lost our child tax credit which was £160 I was like well ok we have gone up the pay scale its not the end of the world, but I use the child benifit for the children, honestly , they get the money splt between them each month and from that they get shoes clothes they want or comics those go go things, sweets, toys ectr,, if they want a dvd the benfit buys it.. there lives would not end if it was taken away but I know I would miss it very much. especially in september when new school bags are needed and shoes, stationary. 

I feel they should crack down on the people who don't deserve the benifit, there are so many people who milk the system, and the hard workers are the ones that suffer.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

But why should I pay for your children to get sweets and toys and DVDs and their school bag and pencil case?

Is that not the responsibility of those who have kids to provide for them themselves?


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> But why should I pay for your children to get sweets and toys and DVDs and their school bag and pencil case?
> 
> Is that not the responsibility of those who have kids to provide for them themselves?


Because her children will be your doctors, your teachers.... and so on and so on.

You will rely on other people's children in your lives so why not help support them in their formative years? Society won't work if everyone is out for themselves and themselves alone. I do get what your saying because I do think that people should consider their finances more before they have children and take that responsibility extremely seriously but it's a balance really isn't it?


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

I work in an old folks home.
One lady, was 1 of 21 children.
That was nearly 100 years ago. 2 of her siblings died,but no benefits and WW1.
What right have we got to moan?

I will say our benefit does go on the kids,and I work part time.
Before I had the kids,I worked 40 hours a week.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

jenniferx said:


> Because her children will be your doctors, your teachers.... and so on and so on.


Their children will also be my lawyers and my accountants who will charge me a fortune for their services too.

I have no problem paying to put food on the table but, sweets and DVDs ?


----------



## noogsy (Aug 20, 2009)

i dont mind so much
so long as they go after the lazy sods next:thumbup:
all the people who are raking in benefits
we spend our family allowance on shoes,clothes and school uniform.
people who work are going to loose tax credits and family allowance
but hopefully they will be cutting benefits next....
worried noogsy xx


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> But why should I pay for your children to get sweets and toys and DVDs and their school bag and pencil case?
> 
> Is that not the responsibility of those who have kids to provide for them themselves?


Hey listen I work bloody hard and earn my money, my husband also works hard,, as I said it would not be the end of the world but i would miss it in september as I think all would if they where buying it,, don't get snappy with me, One time I didn't have children, and I paid my taxes, I never once begrudged, Parents need help..

But yes I brought my children intot he world and if child benifit was to be scrapped yes i would grouse but I can support my own children, the benifit just gives the children extras they would otherwise go without.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> Their children will also be my lawyers and my accountants who will charge me a fortune for their services too.
> 
> I have no problem paying to put food on the table but, sweets and DVDs ?


Don't forget your bin men and bum wipers in your dotage 

I personally don't mind going beyond basic subsistence for kids, if it gives them a better shot and enhanced quality of life then I wouldn't personally begrudge that.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Some peeps say scrap if for everyone regardless.


----------



## xxsarahpopsxx (Sep 30, 2009)

I personally think there shouldnt be any benefit for kids.

You shouldnt have a child unless you are able to support it in every way. Its things like the benefit system which has caused people to become more and more greedy and expect other people to pay for their privileges


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

noogsy said:


> i dont mind so much
> so long as they go after the lazy sods next:thumbup:
> all the people who are raking in benefits


I think they will have a tough job on their hands because with all these public sector people losing jobs plus businesses folding in the private sector, plus the huge numbers of university trained unemployed where are all those people who they turf off benefit going to get jobs, even if they wanted them?

Your long term sick and your long term unemployed are not going to be first in the line for anyone who is looking for an employee. So are they going to starve to death or will they just have to receive some other hand out? I would doubt the government would stand by and watch as they died, not too good for popularity. 

Their time would be better spent trying to get the economy running rather than chase those who are really lost causes. Once the economy is back to normal then perhaps it would be the time to sort them out, when then at least they may have a chance of getting a job.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> Their children will also be my lawyers and my accountants who will charge me a fortune for their services too.
> 
> I have no problem paying to put food on the table but, sweets and DVDs ?


,,,,,,, something is odd this is a weird thing to be saying, you are begrudging a few sweeties and a films, would you be crosser if i said i spent my family benifit on booze and getting nails done!


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

xxsarahpopsxx said:


> I personally think there shouldnt be any benefit for kids.
> 
> You shouldnt have a child unless you are able to support it in every way. Its things like the benefit system which has caused people to become more and more greedy and expect other people to pay for their privileges


what an absoloutly predjudiced and bigoted thing to say.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Ok i'm going to throw a spanner in the works here.I've been on this forum long enough to have read plenty of posts saying if you can't afford,this that and the other for your pets then you shouldn't have them.Now,why doesn't this apply to children?*


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Ok i'm going to throw a spanner in the works here.I've been on this forum long enough to have read plenty of posts saying if you can't afford,this that and the other for your pets then you shouldn't have them.Now,why doesn't this apply to children?*


Good point Janice.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Ok i'm going to throw a spanner in the works here.I've been on this forum long enough to have read plenty of posts saying if you can't afford,this that and the other for your pets then you shouldn't have them.Now,why doesn't this apply to children?*


actually janice i agree with you. I wouldnt dream of having more children while i am training and as a single parent (oh and btw, i dont want more children lol).

However, not sure how you could police it? - special alarms in the bedrooms? or a chastity belt? :lol:


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Ok i'm going to throw a spanner in the works here.I've been on this forum long enough to have read plenty of posts saying if you can't afford,this that and the other for your pets then you shouldn't have them.Now,why doesn't this apply to children?*


This is true, but life is a rollercoaster,, when we had Charlie we where in a fab postion, when Charlie was 5 weeks Rich had a terrible car accicident at work we lost all his overtime work, which was an extra £300 a month approx, things just spiraled out of control. so we started to struggle. if Rich had had his accident before Charlie was around we would not have had him.

But you are right if you cannot afford your child before you make it,, you shouldn't make it.

The child benifit makes life easier. but not essental


----------



## xxsarahpopsxx (Sep 30, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> what an absoloutly predjudiced and bigoted thing to say.


why is it prejudiced and bigoted? because your opinion differs from mine? :confused1:

Maybe if people didn't rely on handouts from the government and actually went out and earned money for themselves and lived within their means then maybe this country wouldnt be such a sham.

And i dont want to pay for sweeties etc for kids especially the lot that go around beating up animals "for fun" or who go around murdering honest people simply because they are bored. I definitely wouldn't mind my money going towards projects where it helps to make kids do something with their lofes and not just go on to reproduce for the sake of it - getting even more of my hard earned money :lol:


----------



## xxsarahpopsxx (Sep 30, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Ok i'm going to throw a spanner in the works here.I've been on this forum long enough to have read plenty of posts saying if you can't afford,this that and the other for your pets then you shouldn't have them.Now,why doesn't this apply to children?*


The point i was trying to convey :thumbup:


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

xxsarahpopsxx said:


> And i dont want to pay for sweeties etc for kids especially the lot that go around beating up animals "for fun" :lol:


Please my children eat sweets ,,,,BUt they don't beat up animals,,, I think you will find alot of people treat there children to either toys or sweets or DVD with the family benifit..


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

> I've been on this forum long enough to have read plenty of posts saying if you can't afford,this that and the other for your pets then you shouldn't have them.Now,why doesn't this apply to children?


Because of the earlier point about society being a balance of give and take. We all need to contribute if we avail of the services of others as we surely will throughout life. It all works symbiotically. We don't subsidise other people's pets because they don't contribute to society the way that other people's children do.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

xxsarahpopsxx said:


> why is it prejudiced and bigoted? because your opinion differs from mine? :confused1:
> 
> Maybe if people didn't rely on handouts from the government and actually went out and earned money for themselves and lived within their means then maybe this country wouldnt be such a sham.
> 
> And i dont want to pay for sweeties etc for kids especially the lot that go around beating up animals "for fun" or who go around murdering honest people simply because they are bored. I definitely wouldn't mind my money going towards projects where it helps to make kids do something with their lofes and not just go on to reproduce for the sake of it - getting even more of my hard earned money :lol:


thats not actually what you said though is it?

what you said was this:



> I personally think there shouldnt be any benefit for kids.
> 
> You shouldnt have a child unless you are able to support it in every way. Its things like the benefit system which has caused people to become more and more greedy and expect other people to pay for their privileges


Which is a sweeping statement which is not only bigoted (defn:a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own) but also prejudiced (defn: preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment made without ascertaining the facts of a case).

You have just commented that children brought up on the welfare stare are:


murderers
animal abusers
parents are lazy and greedy
that their parents had them expecting someone else to pay for them
not deserving of sweets because their parents are temporarily unable to support them financially.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

> I think you will find alot of people treat there children to either toys or sweets or DVD with the family benifit..


And that is exactly why it needs to be cut.
This is not an age where kids starve to death, this is an age where we are talking non-essentials so why should anyone who is also working "bloody hard" pay for someone else's kid's treats and toys.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

jenniferx said:


> Because of the earlier point about society being a balance of give and take. We all need to contribute if we avail of the services of others as we surely will throughout life. It all works symbiotically. We don't subsidise other people's pets because they don't contribute to society the way that other people's children do.


*If people can afford pets then they can afford to keep their children.*


----------



## xxsarahpopsxx (Sep 30, 2009)

piggybaker said:


> Please my children eat sweets ,,,,BUt they don't beat up animals,,, I think you will find alot of people treat there children to either toys or sweets or DVD with the family benifit..


Please dont think i am being mean to any of you who have children who receive the benefit. My sister has it for her son and he is certainly not a monster but i still begrudge paying for it. i love showering my nephew with gifts and sweets - but that is my choice to spend MY money on him. its not my choice to buy sweeties for your children when for all i know (I am certainly not talking specifically about any child) they could be out using the benefit to take drugs (ie older children who use their pocket money for cigarettes or worse).

My sisters and I were brought up without needing all these luxuries like dvds, sweeties (we got once a week if we behaved) and some years we even went without holidays (i went abroad for the first time in july this year). We made our own fun up without having much money


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Havnt read all the posts so sorry if this opinion on this, ime repeating, but as i see it my first thoughts was well ok a lot of people on 45k or more wont be put on the poverty line through it so ok, then it got me thinking about how its always the ones that have helped themselves and paid into the system that are targeted and whether they need it or not its an entitlement.

The ones that have all these kids and dont work never have maybe never will are always the ones sat laughing.

Where do the O.A.P's stand in all this as usual nowwhere, when my kids were little i always said if they took child benefit of us tommorow but i would want it to go to the oap's that pay their own rent or own their own house, pay all their own bills themselves because they are the ones that have worked all their lives, i wouldnt have minded i didnt have kids to recieve a monthly sum to help look after them, its our decition to have them no one makes anyone have children so they are not anyone elses responsibility.

Why should all the handouts always go to young families that have a chance if they wanted to to earn their own money, oap's dont have that luxury other than the ones that have led the life when younger as the younger ones are today and they are still living rent free with all the other benefits.

STOP child benefit for every third and subsequent children, and give it to everyone regardless of earnings, there would still be a hell of a saving made.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> And that is exactly why it needs to be cut.
> This is not an age where kids starve to death, this is an age where we are talking non-essentials so why should anyone who is also working "bloody hard" pay for someone else's kid's treats and toys.


I can say I am absoultly staggered,, I do work,, full days so does my husband,, I am one of those who will lose her family allowence,, I honestly don't understand why you are so ticked by this,,,

I do hope you have never done anything silly to affect your health,, as i would hate to have to have paid to look after you whilst you are in hospital or go to the DR for antibiotics,, see what I mean we all bleed the system in one way or another,, and I don't have to defend myself on this:lol: I am after your statement finding the whole thing rather odd and slightly on the funny side that you begrudge a child getting shoes school bags with the extras so very offensive... how very bizzar.

Oh and I only have 2 children,, I don't have an Army


----------



## xxsarahpopsxx (Sep 30, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> thats not actually what you said though is it?
> 
> what you said was this:
> 
> ...


Oh sorry i missed out the word some


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

xxsarahpopsxx said:


> Oh sorry i missed out the word some


your parents also recieved child benefit.


----------



## xxsarahpopsxx (Sep 30, 2009)

I know they did - doesnt mean i agree with it though


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *If people can afford pets then they can afford to keep their children.*


I'm sure they can but that wasn't your original point unless I have misunderstood.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

child benefit has been paid in one form or another (been called child benefit since 1977 but was family allowance before then) since 1945.

So for those of you mentioning that if your parents couldnt afford sweets you went without... ITS THE SAME NOW!!!

Your parents (or at least the vast majority of the forum members) all recieved child benefit for you in one name or another.

So when they couldnt afford sweets, it wasnt because they werent recieving child benefit... they already were.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

jenniferx said:


> I'm sure they can but that wasn't your original point unless I have misunderstood.


I still stand by my original point but also added another one.People imo,can't moan about not having enough money for their kids but then say they pay a small fortune on their pets.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

> People imo,can't moan about not having enough money for their kids but then say they pay a small fortune on their pets.


Well I would definitely agree with that.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> child benefit has been paid in one form or another (been called child benefit since 1977 but was family allowance before then) since 1945.
> 
> So for those of you mentioning that if your parents couldnt afford sweets you went without... ITS THE SAME NOW!!!
> 
> ...


Yes there has alwayd been child benefit for as long as most of us can remember but that was all they got, they didnt get all the other hand outs that comes with having children, free school meals, free school clothes(secondary school) or child credits. Things were very different many years ago it was a huge worry if the man wasnt in work.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

funny isn't it, the parents at the school i work at always complain of they can't afford this or that, most of them are on benifits, and i can say that with confidence, yet they smoke like chimneys,, I mean is the going rate for a packet of cigeretts about £6 now,, i don't smoke so i don't know.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

I wonder what the actual "disposable income" difference is between those earning under 20k, 30k and 40K when you take into account benefits available.

Obviously i get no other financial support from the state (i wouldn't expect any). My mortgage payments alone are approx £12,000 a year. That is for a VERY modest 3 bed house in the south east where i have to live because of my husbands job. Obviously I pay full council tax etc.

I drive an old Terrano have a normal telly, no sky, no games consoles, no designer clothes, holiday in the UK modestly, We have no savings to speak of but i would say we have a meduim quality of life (please don't think i am complaining). Wish i did have a pile of cash to roll about in 

What irks me is the sector of society that this Government seem to be hitting, we are by no means well off, work hard, contribute lots yet i feel like this is a punishment for doing all the things the Government say they want people to do 

The whole "you shouldnt have kids if you cant afford them is nonsense IMO" Noone knows what life will throw at you in terms of unemployment or illness and the world needs families producing children to pay for its old age and support the industries we all rely on. This benefit cut doesn't hit those who work the system and have no intention of contributing having children regardless or those who can really afford it, why not start there


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Yes there has alwayd been child benefit for as long as most of us can remember but that was all they got, they didnt get all the other hand outs that comes with having children, free school meals, free school clothes(secondary school) or child credits. Things were very different many years ago it was a huge worry if the man wasnt in work.


I dont get any of the above benefits ??? I assume you mean those on lower incomes who this new rule wouldn't affect.

I think the original idea of family allowance was that is was paid to the women to ensure a decent quality of life for the children because it was common in previous generations for the "man of the house" to earn all the money and give his wife an "allowance". What often happened was despite high earnings some husbands kept their families in abject poverty which is why the benefit was paid to the wife irrespective of earnings (i think )


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Yes there has alwayd been child benefit for as long as most of us can remember but that was all they got, they didnt get all the other hand outs that comes with having children, free school meals, free school clothes(secondary school) or child credits. Things were very different many years ago it was a huge worry if the man wasnt in work.


Actually thats not true.

Family allowance was supported by child tax allowance (sound familiar lol) until 1979.

Free school meals were made compulsory for ALL children in the 1944 education act, which was repealed by the conservatives in 1980 (maggie thatcher the milk snatcher). Now only children from poor families recieve free school meals.

Unemployment benefit has been available since: 1911, and was compulsory (e.g. national insurance) since 1948

Free health care for all has been available since 1948

Pensions for all oaps (70+) on low incomes were available since 1908 compulsory since 1948

Maternity benefits since 1948

sickness benefits since 1948

industrial injuries since 1949

National assistance (eventually replaced with income support) for individuals and families on low income since 1956

There a loads more, but the benefits have been around in one form or another since WW2 in most cases. Poor laws which offered financial assistance has been in place since 1832.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> Actually thats not true.
> 
> Family allowance was supported by child tax allowance (sound familiar lol) until 1979.
> 
> ...


WoW where do you find all this info so quickly. cool:thumbup:


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

piggybaker said:


> WoW where do you find all this info so quickly. cool:thumbup:


most of it is on the bbc website for the history of the welfare state, once i had the names of the acts i could do a quick google, and then handily found a very useful school research paper which listed it all out perfectly for me lol!

BUT i do admit i had it saved, as i had a similar discussion some time ago lol, so i'd already got the info to hand. :001_cool:


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I feel that child benefit/family allowance was a lifeline for many families in the past. I doubt there is the same need now.

The fact that anyone who is earning the £45 000 ore possibly up to 
£90 000 that is quoted as the cut off point re the new cuts could possible be annoyed is beyond my comprehension. 

There are people dying in hospital due to lack of funding for new treatments and drugs, there are pensioners dying every winter due to soaring heating costs, there are young people committing suicide due to unemployment and worries about their future and the fittest portion of our society who are usually perfectly capable of earning good money are whinging and whining about the fact that the state is not going to buy pencil cases, DVD's and sweets for their children if the child benefit goes.

They should be ashamed.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I feel that child benefit/family allowance was a lifeline for many families in the past. I doubt there is the same need now.
> 
> The fact that anyone who is earning the £45 000 ore possibly up to
> £90 000 that is quoted as the cut off point re the new cuts could possible be annoyed is beyond my comprehension.
> ...


Lauren i dont think there are many people complaining about there being a cut off for those on higher incomes.

What people are upset about is that its one rule for one (e.g. single income family can only earn up to £44k, but a joint income family could earn up to £88k) and something else for another. Thats injustice whatever way you paint it.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

RAINYBOW said:


> I wonder what the actual "disposable income" difference is between those earning under 20k, 30k and 40K when you take into account benefits available.
> 
> Obviously i get no other financial support from the state (i wouldn't expect any). My mortgage payments alone are approx £12,000 a year. That is for a VERY modest 3 bed house in the south east where i have to live because of my husbands job. Obviously I pay full council tax etc.
> 
> ...


*I can't see why you think its nonsense,fine if people fall on hard times then thats what the benefit system is there for.This country has become a joke for all others because we hand out a benefit for just about anything.*


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> I wonder what the actual "disposable income" difference is between those earning under 20k, 30k and 40K when you take into account benefits available.
> 
> Obviously i get no other financial support from the state (i wouldn't expect any). My mortgage payments alone are approx £12,000 a year. That is for a VERY modest 3 bed house in the south east where i have to live because of my husbands job. Obviously I pay full council tax etc.
> 
> ...


My reply to your comments are there wont be that much difference in disposable income once all the benefits are taken into consideration.
You proberbly pay so much for a 3 bed home because of where you have to live because your husband WORKS! penalised again.

You dont live with sky t.v and all the other "must haves" because your husbans WORKS! no savings you wouldnt need them if you claimed out of work benefits and all that goes with it because in a crisis you would get crisis money.

Of course you should have kids. why shouldnt you because after all you WORK! and pay into the system that pays child benefit unfortunately it also pays for all things you have to go without to allow others to have including their children how much more are we/you expected to give, our/your entitlement to have children? Good on you for going down the right "morally" direction.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I feel that child benefit/family allowance was a lifeline for many families in the past. I doubt there is the same need now.
> 
> The fact that anyone who is earning the £45 000 ore possibly up to
> £90 000 that is quoted as the cut off point re the new cuts could possible be annoyed is beyond my comprehension.
> ...


I think you are missing the point and actually i find that quite offensive and a bit over dramatic to be honest.

If i genuinely believed this money was going to the "greater good" and most needy fair enough but the truth of it is that it isn't !!! THATS what pisses me off !!!!!


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> I think you are missing the point and actually i find that quite offensive and a bit over dramatic to be honest.
> 
> If i genuinely believed this money was going to the "greater good" and most needy fair enough but the truth of it is that it isn't !!! THATS what pisses me off !!!!!


its going to pay the bankers debts


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I can't see why you think its nonsense,fine if people fall on hard times then thats what the benefit system is there for.This country has become a joke for all others because we hand out a benefit for just about anything.*


We have been down this road before Janice, the statement about people shouldnt have kids if they cant afford them is always made as a sweeping statemnt on these sorts of threads, people milking the system is a totally different subject and not what this thread was about.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I feel that child benefit/family allowance was a lifeline for many families in the past. I doubt there is the same need now.
> 
> The fact that anyone who is earning the £45 000 ore possibly up to
> £90 000 that is quoted as the cut off point re the new cuts could possible be annoyed is beyond my comprehension.
> ...


LOL I hope thats not aimed at me,, because I am so not ashamed,, I work and pay for the next family for the benifit, and as for whining I have not even wimpered.. I said i would miss it in september when all needed to be brought for school

But it is terrible with reguards to the people in hospital and heating, but the country needs to stop handing out to all the aslyme seekers and those people who can work but won't,, theres to much going on in this country and it is not all good.

PMSL what are you like..


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> My reply to your comments are there wont be that much difference in disposable income once all the benefits are taken into consideration.
> You proberbly pay so much for a 3 bed home because of where you have to live because your husband WORKS! penalised again.
> 
> You dont live with sky t.v and all the other "must haves" because your husbans WORKS! no savings you wouldnt need them if you claimed out of work benefits and all that goes with it because in a crisis you would get crisis money.
> ...


Thankyou. Thats why it makes me angry  Its not about wether i can make do without my £20 a week benefit it's about the fact that with all the injustice in the benefit system and fat catting that goes on in other areas they chose to hit people like us first


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

I wonder if the goverment have a party member who cruise forums like ours to see what the every day joe really thinks of its goverment because if they don't I think they should,,thye would get a good public point of view.

There are some great points coming out in this debate and i might add with a snigger some silly ones.:scared:


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

i wonder how many people decrying these changes actually voted for this gvt in the first place.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> i wonder how many people decrying these changes actually voted for this gvt in the first place.


not me


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

RAINYBOW said:


> not me


Nor me. I just knew this would happen when they were counting the votes and the results were coming on the news live. I hope people realise what they are like and dont vote them in next time.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

harley bear said:


> Nor me. I just knew this would happen when they were counting the votes and the results were coming on the news live. I hope people realise what they are like and dont vote them in next time.


I suppose it was inevitable, i had hoped the Lib dems might be able to influence some of it but it seems not


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Well i didnt vote for any of them, because whoever got in labour or conservative they are all same, look after the ones that wont look after themselves.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

RAINYBOW said:


> I suppose it was inevitable, i had hoped the Lib dems might be able to influence some of it but it seems not


Oh no they have no influence what so ever i think Nick is just happy to be second fiddle to the slime ball Cameron (he makes my skin crawl) They should be taking benefits and cutting saleries off the rich and not the people who need it! I hate the way this country is run!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

RAINYBOW said:


> We have been down this road before Janice, the statement about people shouldnt have kids if they cant afford them is always made as a sweeping statemnt on these sorts of threads, people milking the system is a totally different subject and not what this thread was about.


 Read back over my posts,my replies have been about the toic of this thread.Sorry if i've hit a nerve but then others have said the same.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

harley bear said:


> They should be taking benefits and cutting saleries off the rich and not the people who need it!


And who at £45000+ a year *needs* child benefit?

I see that people feel got at, however the people on £45000+ a year aren't going to starve without child benefit.

They are part of the fittest part of society. Benefits I feel shouldn't really be "pocket money" for people who are well enough off anyway.

If you are going to cut benefits, you cannot allow people to die without benefits, so it was always going to be those who can afford it, that were going to be hit.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> And who at £45000+ a year *needs* child benefit?
> 
> I see that people feel got at, however the people on £45000+ a year aren't going to starve without child benefit.
> 
> ...


No they arnt going to starve, but its just another kick in the teeth for people that have worked hard to get to that 45k salary, pay into the system, after all who needs loads of kids that they cant truely afford without benefits, its not the job of the 45k earners to keep all these children.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I see that people feel got at, however the people on £45000+ a year aren't going to starve without child benefit.


Exactly - they are on nearly TWICE the national average income and OVER TWICE what official reports say a couple with two children need to live on.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

But they have worked hard to get where they are now so why should they not be entitled to it, after all if anyone is entitled to something its them, its their money, cuts should be taken off people that have or paid to 3 children and then it stops, this would then be taken off the high earners but also be taken off the ones that dont work wont work, after all when you get a house rent free free council tax and every other benefit going think about it, do they really "need" it


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

> But they have worked hard to get where they are now so *why should they not be entitled to it, after all if anyone is entitled to something its them, its their money*


It is not about *entitlement*, it is about value for money.

Family allowance was started as an investment in the future to give support to mothers bringing up the future citizens of this country. 
It was not designed to give pampered kids, extra toys, sweeties or DVDs.



piggybaker said:


> I think you will find alot of people treat there children to either toys or sweets or DVD with the family benifit..


----------



## ClaireLily (Jul 8, 2008)

I agree that it is a total injustice for a couple to get top up on £88k but a single person not to on £44, however, I still maintain that anyone earning £44k partner and child or not should not be entitled to benefit!

This should be seriously rethought but I agree with the point in principal.

Neither myself or my OH will ever be lucky enough to earn £44k and thats with 2 degrees and a PhD between us.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Perhaps a better way of dealing with this would be to stop all child benefits.I can't see a way of dealing with this that will please the majority of people.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

gorgeous said:


> Now whilst people say 44k is a lot of money, for certain parts of the Country it isn't.


I would love for mine and Shelleys combined income to be somewhere near that . Boss has decided that my wages needed to be on average £200 a month less than i'm supposed to be getting, without even explaining why...


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> But they have worked hard to get where they are now so why should they not be entitled to it


I find that quite insulting - many people on £25K, £35K etc work hard too. Renumeration isn't directly related to how hard you work.

Whichever way you look at it, £45 is nearly twice the average income - that means that far more people still get child benefit than don't. If anyone cannot have a decent standard of living on £45K then something is going wrong with their budgeting. Although, TBH, it could be £50K and there would still be those that it applies to who would be complaining and pleading poverty.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Perhaps a better way of dealing with this would be to stop all child benefits.


As it was a universal benefit and is now a means tested benefit, it would make sense to me to incorporate it into the child tax credits. This would mean it would be related to household income. But I can't see that being popular.



> I can't see a way of dealing with this that will please the majority of people


But is that a handful of people on a forum, or the country as a whole. I don't know the numbers, but given they are taking a cut of point at nearly twice the national average income, can we not conclude that in fact, many more people will be keeping this benefit than those losing it.


----------



## ClaireLily (Jul 8, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I find that quite insulting - many people on £25K, £35K etc work hard too. Renumeration isn't directly related to how hard you work.
> 
> Whichever way you look at it, £45 is nearly twice the average income - that means that far more people still get child benefit than don't. If anyone cannot have a decent standard of living on £45K then something is going wrong with their budgeting. Although, TBH, it could be £50K and there would still be those that it applies to who would be complaining and pleading poverty.


Here here! In fact I'd go as far to say that many people on less than £25k probably work much harder than some of the highest earners.


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

ClaireLily said:


> Here here! In fact I'd go as far to say that many people on less than £25k probably work much harder than some of the highest earners.


Yep,totally agree:thumbsup:


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

catz4m8z said:


> Nope, just daydreaming about earning over 44k a year.


LOL same.

We're entitled to very little, my partner earns 17k (just under) per year. We have two childrren, and another two who live with us at weekends. I don't work and I constantly feel as though we're being penalised for choosing to be a stay at home mum and raise my children in a home, I am however just a few short weeks away from becoming a registered childminder so I can begin working which we need. Every month (near enough) since February we've been having to borrow money for rent fom my parents, and our rent isn't even that much. Budgeting on a £40 a week food shopping and people who earn effing 44k a year are bloody complaining they'll not get £20 a week, it's a joke. Some people are just so greedy.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> It is not about *entitlement*, it is about value for money.
> 
> Family allowance was started as an investment in the future to give support to mothers bringing up the future citizens of this country.
> It was not designed to give pampered kids, extra toys, sweeties or DVDs.


And i would agree with that statement if the majority of children actually benefited from it but they dont in many many cases. It was not designed to give parents extra **** and beer either.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

NicoleW said:


> LOL same.
> 
> We're entitled to very little, my partner earns 17k (just under) per year. We have two childrren, and another two who live with us at weekends. I don't work and I constantly feel as though we're being penalised for choosing to be a stay at home mum and raise my children in a home, I am however just a few short weeks away from becoming a registered childminder so I can begin working which we need. Every month (near enough) since February we've been having to borrow money for rent fom my parents, and our rent isn't even that much. Budgeting on a £40 a week food shopping and people who earn effing 44k a year are bloody complaining they'll not get £20 a week, it's a joke. Some people are just so greedy.


It's not about complaining about losing £20 a week and its certainly NOT driven by greed, i wouldn't begrudge anyone on less than me extra support unless of course they are milking the system and have never worked a day in their lives preferring to let the likes of me pay for everything (and we all know there are plenty of people out there like that)

It's about looking at the bigger picture. Why not make the banks that we now OWN pay back the money (our money) that was used to prop them up instead of them being allowed to turn vast profits, doesn't that make you more angry than wether i have an extra £20 in my pocket.

I am not on here pleading poverty  have said quite the opposite actually but i am entitled to be angry about being hit by a Government initiative that affects me and my family when others are languishing at my expense as a tax payer.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> Perhaps a better way of dealing with this would be to stop all child benefits.I can't see a way of dealing with this that will please the majority of people.


I agree and that way the high earners wouldnt be against this ok they wouldnt be getting it but neither would many that havnt paid a penny into the system i think thats what sticks in peoples throat not the fact that they need it but the fact that then again they are penalised for doing the right thing, working hard.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I find that quite insulting - many people on £25K, £35K etc work hard too. Renumeration isn't directly related to how hard you work.
> 
> Whichever way you look at it, £45 is nearly twice the average income - that means that far more people still get child benefit than don't. If anyone cannot have a decent standard of living on £45K then something is going wrong with their budgeting. Although, TBH, it could be £50K and there would still be those that it applies to who would be complaining and pleading poverty.


It wasnt meant to insult anyone i dont earn 45k and i work hard anyone that goes to work, works hard otherwise they wouldnt have a job.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

OK - let's turn this on it's head.

Child Benefit as it now stands is a universal benefit paid out of taxes.

That means that those earning the least amount are actually paying for the wealthiest to get £20 a week per child (or thereabouts - it's a while since I got it). How fair is that?


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

I agree there are alot of people out there who simply can't be arsed to work, plain and simple.

I had alot of trouble when I was a single mum, living on my own. I had to get a job that paid me 17k or more or I'd be worse off than I was, which was the main reason I didn't work when my first child was a baby. Hard to get a job worth that money when you don't have any qualifications or that much work experience ( I was 17) but alas that was nobodies fault but my own.

I didn't mean to offend anyone, I was just angry that yes there will be SOME people out there complaining they're not getting child benefit when they earn 3 times as much as what we do and I believe we're in a more need of it than those other families.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

£20 a week is neither here nor there with me - but my husband works bloody hard - probs in excess of 60 hours a week - currently in the USA at the moment. He works hard to give his family a good standard of living. It grates me when I see his hard earned cash being so heavily taxed so the majority of it goes to benefits.

Now I and my hubby genuinely do not mind or begrude the people that genuinely deserve benefits but do begrudge the people who sit on their big fat backsides smoking ****, churning out kids with ridiculous names and buying loads of crisps, coke and pizzas.

I would quite happily give my £20 a week that I am losing directly to those that need it - Great Ormond Street would be a good start. Or the little old people that live in their homes 24/ 7 only seeing a carer 3 times a day for 15 mins cos the government have got no more funding to give them the respect, dignity and compassion that they so deserve.


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

Its the Chain smoking,chicken nugget eating,beer swilling,Jeremy Kyle watching,staffie owning, bling wearing,fake tanners that wind me up.Drop another kid,get a council house,attitude


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

gorgeous said:


> £20 a week is neither here nor there with me - but my husband works bloody hard - probs in excess of 60 hours a week - currently in the USA at the moment. He works hard to give his family a good standard of living. It grates me when I see his hard earned cash being so heavily taxed so the majority of it goes to benefits.
> 
> Now I and my hubby genuinely do not mind or begrude the people that genuinely deserve benefits but do begrudge the people who sit on their big fat backsides smoking ****, churning out kids with ridiculous names and buying loads of crisps, coke and pizzas.
> 
> I would quite happily give my £20 a week that I am losing directly to those that need it - Great Ormond Street would be a good start. Or the little old people that live in their homes 24/ 7 only seeing a carer 3 times a day for 15 mins cos the government have got no more funding to give them the respect, dignity and compassion that they so deserve.


Thats just my way of thinking its not the £20 at all its as you say we are working to keep the idle, they get practically everything paid for, where would it come from if we were all of the same mind and they begrudge the ones that put the money in the pot £20.

I dont get child benefit so ime not trying to defend anything that i get or that could be taken away from me, and as i said in one of my earlier posts i would have and said at the time we were recieving it that i would quite happily give it to a better cause, but certainly would have begrudged having it taken from me to yet again finance them that live on handouts through choice/way of life.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> £20 a week is neither here nor there with me - but my husband works bloody hard - probs in excess of 60 hours a week - currently in the USA at the moment. He works hard to give his family a good standard of living. It grates me when I see his hard earned cash being so heavily taxed so the majority of it goes to benefits.
> 
> Now I and my hubby genuinely do not mind or begrude the people that genuinely deserve benefits but do begrudge the people who sit on their big fat backsides smoking ****, churning out kids with ridiculous names and buying loads of crisps, coke and pizzas.
> 
> I would quite happily give my £20 a week that I am losing directly to those that need it - Great Ormond Street would be a good start. Or the little old people that live in their homes 24/ 7 only seeing a carer 3 times a day for 15 mins cos the government have got no more funding to give them the respect, dignity and compassion that they so deserve


.

But we're not talking about people who are receiving benefits (in fact, isn't child benefit taking into account when calculating benefit?). We are talking about hard working people (many of whom will work just as hard as your husband) but who simply do not earn as much money. In fact, anyone earning up to £44K which, as the average income is £25K, that's the majority of people. In fact, why should people who earn £17K and struggle, contribute their taxes to pay for child benefit for the wealthy? I think that is much more unfair.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

Just to clarify we never go to mcdonalds, we have a pizza every friday night (homemade or takeout), we don't smoke, I have one bottle of win every 3 months if that!

But I am guilty of watching Jeremy Kyle

Only on the mornings where I wake up feeling so depressed and thinking horrid things about myself, I switch it on and bang it's like an ego boost, my life could be worse and I could look worse than I do! 

In general though we go to the machine evry time it gets paid in, we take it out and put itinto their money box at home which goes towards things they NEED.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> .
> 
> But we're not talking about people who are receiving benefits (in fact, isn't child benefit taking into account when calculating benefit?). We are talking about hard working people (many of whom will work just as hard as your husband) but who simply do not earn as much money. In fact, anyone earning up to £44K which, as the average income is £25K, that's the majority of people. In fact, why should people who earn £17K and struggle, contribute their taxes to pay for child benefit for the wealthy? I think that is much more unfair.


Just the same as working people that pay taxes that have no children who know they will never have children but still have to pay for everyone (regardless of their income) child benefit, whichever way you look at it, its unfair on someone.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Not really, taxation is about the redistribution of wealth. Thankfully, the idea that the poor were taxed to give income to the rich vanished long ago


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

They should just scrap money altogether, and should pay for things using potatoes and vegetables

That would be nice


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

haeveymolly said:


> Just the same as working people that pay taxes that have no children who know they will never have children but still have to pay for everyone (regardless of their income) child benefit, whichever way you look at it, its unfair on someone.


To be fair the people who chose not to have kids, its their choice and i doubt many people who have chosen not to have children will be refusing to draw their pensions when they hit 60 65 or whatever because the kids of today will be the adults of tomorrow who will be paying taxes to pay the pensions! Why shouldnt kids get a little bit extra because their the ones who will be saddled with the debt that the counrty has.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I think that mentioning the unemployed and the banks and every other cause/effect of this recession is fudging the issuing regarding child benefit.

The country is a mess and drastic measures need to be taken.

£20 a week is being paid to every family in the country with a child, more to those who have more than one child and to some the benefit lasts for up to 19 years.

That is whether they earn £20 per week or whether they earn £20 000 per week, so is that fair?

I do not want to hear people bleating on about chavs and cigarette smoking beer swilling under-classes, getting money for nothing. 
That is not the point, the issue here is whether a person on £45000+ a year needs £20 per week handout for 19 years (£19 760) of government money to exist. I do not feel they do, full stop.

The money would be better off somewhere else. It is no good saying it will go to some fat backsided yob.
It will in reality end up back with the government, to try and get us out of this mess. 

It seems that some cannot see the big picture and the greater good.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I think that mentioning the unemployed and the banks and every other cause/effect of this recession is fudging the issuing regarding child benefit.
> 
> The country is a mess and drastic measures need to be taken.
> 
> ...


You are right this country is in a mess, and yes it does usually come back to the unemployed when i say unemployed ime refering to the idle dont want to work unemployed, they are the ones bleeding this country dry not the £20 going to the high earners, if anyone is entitled to it its the high earners not the dont work, wont work people.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

44K a year is a dream!

I earn between £400-£500 a month
And my parents one of which is on disability benefits and the other doesnt work anymore live on about £400 a month.


That includes food, electricity and treats occasionally. Yes we're with the council so we dont pay rent, but we pay everything else and with 4 cats aswell, plus petrol.

I give my parents £100 a month for keep and that goes mainly on electricity and petrol.

So personally, people complaining about having child benefits cut cos they earn over 44K, i want to give them a serious kick up the ass.

Growing up my parents were on basic wages, paid all thier taxes and we lived on a few more hundred then we do now, we survived then and we survive now.

44K is a f**k load of money in my eyes, i'd be more then willing to give a 44k a year life a go, thank you very much!


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Staysee said:


> 44K a year is a dream!
> 
> I earn between £400-£500 a month
> And my parents one of which is on disability benefits and the other doesnt work anymore live on about £400 a month.
> ...


But anyone earning £400 to £500 is the eqivalent to earning £1100 per month if you were private renting more in some areas many will be left with the same amount as you start with once they have paid their rent.


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

piggybaker said:


> I wonder if the goverment have a party member who cruise forums like ours to see what the every day joe really thinks of its goverment because if they don't I think they should,,thye would get a good public point of view.
> 
> There are some great points coming out in this debate and i might add with a snigger some silly ones.:scared:


Don't be daft...since when have those pillocks ever listened to the electorate...they're only interested in what THEY think.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> But anyone earning £400 to £500 is the eqivalent to earning £1100 per month if you were private renting more in some areas many will be left with the same amount as you start with once they have paid their rent.


We've been there aswell and still got by


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

I've just been reading that Neil Kinnock and his missus get pensions of £185,000 a year...that's where your taxes are going.

That's *388 times* more than I get...Not 10X...not 20X... but 388X....how can that be right?


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I think that mentioning the unemployed and the banks and every other cause/effect of this recession is fudging the issuing regarding child benefit.
> 
> The country is a mess and drastic measures need to be taken.
> 
> ...


Do you honestly think thats what this is all about :lol: This is small potatoes compared to our national debt. This money isnt going towards the greater good, thats the point some of us are trying to make. Why can't they just cancel Trident to sort out the defecit  or like i said make the banks pay all their profits back to service their own debts 

They were talking about capping benefits at £26,000 that must mean some people are recieving in excess of £26k in benefits, not working, house provided, bills paid. If you remove my mortgage payments from our income and then all the other stuff i pay full whack for because i don't get benefits (rightly so) then i doubt there would be much difference between the disposable incomes, yet i work and pay tax as does my husband which supports *some *sectors of society and their insistance that it's not worth working for a living. I am all for the state keeping those people who are sick, vulnerable or have had a change in personal circumstances that means they need support but the benefit cheats are relevant to this discussion because thats why it pisses some of us off.

I used to know someone who had a fanatstic standard of living considering she was (according to the authorities) a single Mum on nothing but benefits, she had never worked a day in her life, hubby was a tradesman earning a packet but all cash jobs and not living with her as far as the benefits people were concerned, they had a better standard of living than i do now on what we earn yet under these rules she would keep her child benefit. THATS what is wrong with this, and she was not an isolated case, there were dozens like her on that one estate  They give genuine people a bad name IMO.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> It is not about *entitlement*, it is about value for money.
> 
> Family allowance was started as an investment in the future to give support to mothers bringing up the future citizens of this country.
> It was not designed to give pampered kids, extra toys, sweeties or DVDs.


I am not going to argue with you,, I can only think you have not your own children, or you have had and they have flown the nest or your someone who is a save the world charactor and is not having anymore little bodies to fill the planet with.. But I love my children, and even if i had not had family allowence I would still allow my children there set amount of money a month.

I am so going to respect we have a different point of view, but I wanted to make you aware, I have worked hard to get where i am and I have not claimed benifits and pay my tax and NI,. but I am sure you will have a sweeping statement about spoilt children.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

Personally I think they should stop EVERY benefit with the exception of the old age pension and to those that are severely disabled! They should shop dishing out free £17,000 cars to them who are SO CALLED disabled and go back to the old plastic pigs or little blue bubble cars!! Then we would see how many would want them! ! I think they should stop paying exhorbitant rents to money grabbing landloads with houses galore in their property portfolio. to them that can afford to have children - go ahead - breed like hell! To those who you can't use a condom!


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Personally I think they should stop EVERY benefit with the exception of the old age pension and to those that are severely disabled! They should shop dishing out free £17,000 cars to them who are SO CALLED disabled and go back to the old plastic pigs or little blue bubble cars!! Then we would see how many would want them! ! I think they should stop paying exhorbitant rents to money grabbing landloads with houses galore in their property portfolio. to them that can afford to have children - go ahead - breed like hell! To those who you can't use a *condom![/*QUOTE]
> 
> And they are FREE from your Family Planning Clinic.....


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

gorgeous said:


> DoubleTrouble said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I think they should stop EVERY benefit with the exception of the old age pension and to those that are severely disabled! They should shop dishing out free £17,000 cars to them who are SO CALLED disabled and go back to the old plastic pigs or little blue bubble cars!! Then we would see how many would want them! ! I think they should stop paying exhorbitant rents to money grabbing landloads with houses galore in their property portfolio. to them that can afford to have children - go ahead - breed like hell! To those who you can't use a *condom![/*QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

*All I have to say is if you can't afford children yourself, you shouldn't have them. WHY should others have to pay tax to help keep them for you ??????????*


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Thanks everyone for your input, been very interesting to read. Off to bed now and to have a no 2, better be quick else be taxed for that soon!


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

I dont understand why the Government has to target anybody with regards to cuts!! why dont they stop paying the fat cats (themselves included) their big fat salaries and the banks their huge bonuses etc ????? there are many ways of reaping back the money that incidently was the governments fault in the first place without using the average joe bloggs its just another case of work your arse off and pay your tax and NI and we will still penalise you!


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

I wonder if David Cameron will stop claiming it!


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

suzy93074 said:


> I dont understand why the Government has to target anybody with regards to cuts!! why dont they stop paying the fat cats (themselves included) their big fat salaries and the banks their huge bonuses etc ????? there are many ways of reaping back the money that incidently was the governments fault in the first place without using the average joe bloggs its just another case of work your arse off and pay your tax and NI and we will still penalise you!


I totally agree Suzy..... Its not just the benefit system that has been misused its the fat cat salaries all contributing to the current situation.

I agree that many benefits should be cut but im still in favour of ones that help people with children get out to work like the child care element and child benefit but much benefit is wasted and misused... I think people who wont work because they dont want too or women who have children so they dont have to work should be targeted not hard working people....


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

Happy Paws said:


> *All I have to say is if you can't afford children yourself, you shouldn't have them. WHY should others have to pay tax to help keep them for you ??????????*


thats exactly what I just said!!!!:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
A child is for life! Not just for Christmas!!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

Staysee said:


> 44K a year is a dream!
> 
> I earn between £400-£500 a month
> And my parents one of which is on disability benefits and the other doesnt work anymore live on about £400 a month.
> ...


44k ain't as you put it a f**k load of money! t'is a mere £800 a week! And those on 44k are paying 40% tax to contribute to them that are bone idle!


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> I totally agree Suzy..... Its not just the benefit system that has been misused its the fat cat salaries all contributing to the current situation.
> 
> I agree that many benefits should be cut but im still in favour of ones that help people with children get out to work like the child care element and child benefit but much benefit is wasted and misused... I think people who wont work because they dont want too or women who have children so they dont have to work should be targeted not hard working people....


Exactly Claire I dont begrudge anyone getting help and thats what it should be getting help - not totally abusing the system which lets face it is the governments fault because they have allowed so many loopholes.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Can I just say 44k a year IS a lot to most people...... we get by on much less than that and we pay our mortgage ect ect and get a small amount of benefits towards child care, 

£800 a week is a good wage imo


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> Can I just say 44k a year IS a lot to most people...... we get by on much less than that and we pay our mortgage ect ect and get a small amount of benefits towards child care,
> 
> £800 a week is a good wage imo


Yes it is!!! I wish I was on that!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

ClaireLouise said:


> Can I just say 44k a year IS a lot to most people...... we get by on much less than that and we pay our mortgage ect ect and get a small amount of benefits towards child care,
> 
> £800 a week is a good wage imo


depends where you live in the country Claire!! In our area it it a fortune yes! Try surviving on it in London though!

DT


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> depends where you live in the country Claire!! In our area it it a fortune yes! Try surviving on it in London though!
> 
> DT


True..... 
I could have fun spending it though


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

DoubleTrouble said:


> depends where you live in the country Claire!! In our area it it a fortune yes! Try surviving on it in London though!
> 
> DT


yes but that averages out because In London you are going to earn a much higher wage because the cost of living is much higher .


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

Top and bottom of it is guys I dont personally think that any tax I pay should go to contributing to raising anyones kids! Bout time they got the message! if you can't afford em don;t have em! 
To the national health, the old age pension to the armed forces yes!
but to keep the bone idle NO WAY! go find yourself a cardboard box!
Enough is enough!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

suzy93074 said:


> yes but that averages out because In London you are going to earn a much higher wage because the cost of living is much higher .


Yep! 44k! compare the price of houses to those in London to those in nottinghamshire Suzy they comeback and tell me that 44k is a lot of money!


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Top and bottom of it is guys I dont personally think that any tax I pay should go to contributing to raising anyones kids! Bout time they got the message! if you can't afford em don;t have em!
> To the national health, the old age pension to the armed forces yes!
> but to keep the bone idle NO WAY! go find yourself a cardboard box!
> Enough is enough!!


It work all ways if we all start with this attitude DT. I could say I dont really want to contribute to anyone elses pension, school dinner, health care ect ect. Were all in it so have to pay it.
I dont think people shouldnt have kids just because finances are tight. Benefits are there to help people in need and is it means helping a family so they can work im all for it. Not all benefits relating to children are a hand out.


----------



## nfp20 (Jun 29, 2010)

In some respects some of the measures they are putting in are worrying, 

Child Benefit has one rather positive that some people don't take into account, it is money that goes straight to the mum not as joint income and if you are ever in a situation where getting away for your own safety is an issue that little bit of money can go along way. I would hate to think that someone was stuck in a crap or dangerous marriage because of funds if they are a single income family. Same for those who have husbands who choose to spend their money on drugs, drink, gambling etc instead of their family. It is a great fall back open to all.

The other benefits I can see a lot of poverty occuring for what is the sensational headlines of the few who take advantage of the system. I was made redundant years ago from a very good job and it totally destroys your confidence and belief especially when finding another job is not so easy to do in your field which meant relying on benefits. I would hate to think that a family in this dreadful situation was forced to move from their home with family, friends and support network that they will need for the sake of the governments policy on reducing benefits. 

How much of a stigma will that bring in a time of people losing jobs????


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

ClaireLouise said:


> It work all ways if we all start with this attitude DT. I could say I dont really want to contribute to anyone elses pension, school dinner, health care ect ect. Were all in it so have to pay it.
> I dont think people shouldnt have kids just because finances are tight. Benefits are there to help people in need and is it means helping a family so they can work im all for it. Not all benefits relating to children are a hand out.


but it doesn't work all ways Claire! there are those that have NEVER done a days work in their life have a houseful kids and expect those of us who work to foot the bill!

and no! I do not want to contribute to their school meals! nor their education for that matter!


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Yep! 44k! compare the price of houses to those in London to those in nottinghamshire Suzy they comeback and tell me that 44k is a lot of money!


Well I still wouldnt say no DT and I would love to be able to even start thinking about owning my own home  I guess its what you become used to and even though I work Im still pretty poor so to me 800 a week is a lot regardless where you live


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

DoubleTrouble said:


> but it doesn't work all ways Claire! there are those that have NEVER done a days work in their life have a houseful kids and expect those of us who work to foot the bill!
> 
> and no! I do not want ot contribut to their school meals! nor their education for that matter!


yes there are those DT and it is infuriating but stopping all benefits is therefore persecuting ALL people who need help and some people do genuinely need that help - I think its up to the government to put measures in place to stop people from just sitting having babies etc without hurting those that do need aid.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> It work all ways if we all start with this attitude DT. I could say I dont really want to contribute to anyone elses pension, school dinner, health care ect ect. Were all in it so have to pay it.
> I dont think people shouldnt have kids just because finances are tight. Benefits are there to help people in need and is it means helping a family so they can work im all for it. Not all benefits relating to children are a hand out.


I cannot understand why anyone thinks it is OK for people who are in work and earning enough to be in the 40% tax bracket to be receiving hand outs from the state.

Incredible.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> but it doesn't work all ways Claire! there are those that have NEVER done a days work in their life have a houseful kids and expect those of us who work to foot the bill!


and I dont dispute people who live like that dont deserve a penny of what they get, it is madness they get away with it to be honest. What I am say is that not every parent who recieves benefits(for whatever reason low income, lone parent, childcare element) are free loading. I sometimes feel a bit bothered when people say " I dont see why I should pay my hard earned for other people children!" ect ect because you pay towards my children and I work just as hard as the next person, just because I recieve some benefits doesnt mean im a lay about, people shouldnt be tarred with the same brush


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> I cannot understand why anyone thinks it is OK for people who are in work and earning enough to be in the 40% tax bracket to be receiving hand outs from the state.
> 
> Incredible.


so those that go out to work and make that effort, pay tax, pay NI Do what the government wants as in out there working hard - and then get penalised just because of that very thing??? see I dont begrude :confused1:that and I dont see why anyone would??


----------



## Cat_Crazy (Jul 15, 2009)

Please remember that not all parents want to be at home doing nothing, some have no choice.

My son is severely disabled and whilst he now attends school on an average week he is sent home at least 3 times and I go to school every lunch time to feed him and also sometimes to change him if they are short staffed.

I would love to work!

I didn't go to university to sit at home but when my husband left things got a lot harder and whilst I held down my job for another year I was eventually asked to leave as they could not cope with my frequant absence and my having to leave when emergencies arose.

Believe me I have tried to find a job to fit around my son's needs but it's not like I can say 'oh I can't work Thursday' as I have no way of knowing when I will be needed and this makes it near impossible.

My choices are to stay at home and do the best by my son, taking a HUGE drop in earnings I might add or to go to work and allow my son to suffer in school where his needs are un-able to be fully met by his teachers.

I resent being bundled into a group of single mums that get goverment help. 

I volunteer for my local animal rescue and spend a lot of time on the re-homing side, I run a teen group for gay/lesbian teen's, I man a gay/lesbian helpline phone number, I volunteer in help the aged and I volunteer as a parent reader at my child's school. All these things can be cancelled at the drop of a hat should the need arise but paid work cannot.

I am not sat at home getting rich of the state but suffering and having to go without many things we once had in order to give my son the life he needs and I hope that in the future he will be able to be managed so that I can return to my career that I love.

Please remember that not everyone is the same and we all have different circumstances, you never know what brought a person to where they are and it's so easy to judge the single mum who appears to have it made.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

suzy93074 said:


> Well I still wouldnt say no DT and I would love to be able to even start thinking about owning my own home  I guess its what you become used to and even though I work Im still pretty poor so to me 800 a week is a lot regardless where you live


Well living in nottinghamshire Suzie you will know that we are one of the higest rated areas in the UK! My council tax is well over £2000 I do not have ONE penny income PA! And I am still paying tax indirectly!!!but I have to pay all of that counil tax! why?? Because I worked and I saved! You know what! I should have p*ssed it up the wall! THEN I would have been coining it in like many more!


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> and I dont dispute people who live like that dont deserve a penny of what they get, it is madness they get away with it to be honest. What I am say is that not every parent who recieves benefits(for whatever reason low income, lone parent, childcare element) are free loading. I sometimes feel a bit bothered when people say " I dont see why I should pay my hard earned for other people children!" ect ect because you pay towards my children and I work just as hard as the next person, just because I recieve some benefits doesnt mean im a lay about, people shouldnt be tarred with the same brush


How are you going to get the long term unemployed back to work?
Who on earth is going to employ them? 
You cannot allow them nor their children to starve to death or resort to lives of crime. It is not easy.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Well living in nottinghamshire Suzie you will know that we are one of the higest rated areas in the UK! My council tax is well over £2000 I do not have ONE penny income PA! And I am still paying tax indirectly!!!but I have to pay all of that counil tax! why?? Because I worked and I saved! You know what! I should have p*ssed it up the wall! THEN I would have been coining it in like many more!


yes I know, luckily I get a discount on mine because we are a lower income but yes I can see your point and yes I can understand why you would be pissed off DT its like peoples pensions those that saved stamp money etc for years and now have lost all their pensions its disgraceful! but thats my point! why is the government targeting all of us!! there are soooo many other ways to reap back the debt! we should be questioning the goverment not getting at others which imo is what they want!!


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> How are you going to get the long term unemployed back to work?
> Who on earth is going to employ them?
> You cannot allow them nor their children to starve to death or resort to lives of crime. It is not easy.


Exactly - but again this is the Governments fault - they have bred a society of dependency on benefit because they didnt ensure the system was tight simple as and now they are reaping the effects and panicking.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

suzy93074 said:


> so those that go out to work and make that effort, pay tax, pay NI Do what the government wants as in out there working hard - *and then get penalised* just because of that very thing??? see I dont begrude :confused1:that and I dont see why anyone would??


Get penalised?
So it is their God given right to get money from the government, no matter how much they earn?
So is it OK that a high earning footballer, a banker, a multimillionaire gets their £20 a week in child benefit too?


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> I cannot understand why anyone thinks it is OK for people who are in work and earning enough to be in the 40% tax bracket to be receiving hand outs from the state.
> 
> Incredible.


What? you are saying that you do not understand why a person who earms 40k (hardly a fortune after tax and NI maybe £33,400) and is responsible enough to have provided a home for their children and is probably paying mortgage repayments to the tune of £2000 per month plus child care of maybe £400 a month plus council tax and everything else should not receive child benefit! is that what you are saying?


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

ClaireLouise said:


> I work just as hard as the next person, just because I recieve some benefits doesnt mean im a lay about, people shouldnt be tarred with the same brush


I am not tarring all with the same brush Claire! just stop ALL child benefits!


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> What? you are saying that you do not understand why a person who earms 40k (hardly a fortune after tax and NI maybe £33,400) and is responsible enough to have provided a home for their children and is probably paying mortgage repayments to the tune of £2000 per month plus child care of maybe £400 a month plus council tax and everything else should not receive child benefit! is that what you are saying?


You can double the child care costs DT


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> Get penalised?
> So it is their God given right to get money from the government, no matter how much they earn?
> So is it OK that a high earning footballer, a banker, a multimillionaire gets their £20 a week in child benefit too?


IMO YES!!! they would more than pay their dues in tax and NI!!! I think its time those that DO work their arses off (maybe not footballers were rewarded a little more ! up to now its only those that claim multiple benefits that really gain anything ie free dentist/free prescriptions etc I have to pay for these!! and I dont think thats always fair just because someone earns money by working why should they be punished and treated differently???


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> I am not tarring all with the same brush Claire! just stop ALL child benefits!


So if all child type benefits were stopped I couldnt afford to work and would have to give up my job and stay at home. Which would then mean we would get money off council tax ect and would probably be no worse off. 

surely the incentive should be on assisting people to work especially when child care is so expensive when children are young..

I work 30 hours a week 
It costs me £140 for 2 days at nursery for 2 children, luckly my mum still has them 2 day however I dont know how much longer this will continue and I get £30 a week from the governement towards the nursery fees.... hardly excessive but im grateful for it, it helps us as im sure it does many working families and obviously its a short term expense as I wont pay it when they are of school age


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

suzy93074 said:


> IMO YES!!! they would more than pay their dues in tax and NI!!! I think its time those that DO work their arses off (maybe not footballers were rewarded a little more ! up to now its only those that claim multiple benefits that really gain anything ie free dentist/free prescriptions etc I have to pay for these!! and I dont think thats always fair just because someone earns money by working why should they be punished and treated differently???


Now we have opened another can of worms Suzie! Why should the Welsh get it free yet in Emgand we have to pay?


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Now we have opened another can of worms Suzie! Why should the Welsh get it free yet in Emgand we have to pay?


omg dont get me started its the same with Tampons/Sanitary towels I have always thought they should be free its not like we have a choice!


----------



## lozb (May 31, 2010)

suzy93074 said:


> omg dont get me started its the same with Tampons/Sanitary towels I have always thought they should be free its not like we have a choice!


:thumbup: :lol:
agreed!

As for dentists - why do we have to pay for them at all? Aren't teeth part of the body like your bones/limbs/head etc etc....?

As for CB... the single income thing is Very Unfair. As for the whole debate - think it's been pretty much covered already...*sneaks off to bed*


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> So if all child type benefits were stopped I couldnt afford to work and would have to give up my job and stay at home. Which would then mean we would get money off council tax ect and would probably be no worse off.
> 
> surely the incentive should be on assisting people to work especially when child care is so expensive when children are young..
> 
> ...


Have to agree again with Claire I know a lot of women who go to work and wouldnt be able to afford child care if they didnt get a little assistance hence they would then have to give up work and go on benefits - more money in actual fact than what they get in family credit so where is the benefit in that???:confused1:


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

ClaireLouise said:


> So if all child type benefits were stopped I couldnt afford to work and would have to give up my job and stay at home. Which would then mean we would get money off council tax ect and would probably be no worse off.
> 
> surely the incentive should be on assisting people to work especially when child care is so expensive when children are young..
> 
> ...


but you just hit the nail on the head Claire! You ARE working! Why should you have to subsidise those that have NEVER done a days work in their life!! And you know as well as i do (you only have to look down the street) that there are many that havn't!
DT


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

suzy93074 said:


> omg dont get me started its the same with Tampons/Sanitary towels I have always thought they should be free its not like we have a choice!


Well Suzy...... Talking about sanitary stuff and the like..... Thanks to Governement cuts ect Incontience products are currently on prescription but are gonna be cut massively in the next few months so I wonder how that will affect the elderly especially


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

lozb said:


> :thumbup: :lol:
> agreed!
> 
> As for dentists - why do we have to pay for them at all? Aren't teeth part of the body like your bones/limbs/head etc etc....?
> ...


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> but you just hit the nail on the head Claire! You ARE working! *Why should you have to subsidise those that have NEVER done a days work in their life*!! And you know as well as i do (you only have to look down the street) that there are many that havn't!
> DT


Ive always fully agreed with that DT just dont think cutting the whole child benefit system would work.....


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> Well Suzy...... Talking about sanitary stuff and the like..... Thanks to Governement cuts ect Incontience products are currently on prescription but are gonna be cut massively in the next few months so I wonder how that will affect the elderly especially


Yep  very sad really I blame all this on the government being ran by rich posh boys who have never lived in the real world


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

ClaireLouise said:


> Ive always fully agreed with that DT just dont think cutting the whole child benefit system would work.....


Personally Claire beginning to think that the old way was the best way!
For those who work give them extra tax allowance for each child they have! That way if you choose to have twelve kids you end up paying little or no tax!

sereiously! I am so so so against themm that have never ever done a days work and see having kids as an occupation!


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Have enjoyed the chat tonight ll, was very interesting... Im off to bed will catch u all tomorrow


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> Have enjoyed the chat tonight ll, was very interesting... Im off to bed will catch u all tomorrow


Nite nite hun im off to bed now gotta be up early for work :lol::lol::thumbsup:xxxx


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

suzy93074 said:


> Nite nite hun im off to bed now gotta be up early for work :lol::lol::thumbsup:xxxx


Im on a course tomorrow and its gonna be so boring I need a good nights sleep to stay awake Oh How I love my trips to the Continence Advisory

have a good day at work hun


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> Im on a course tomorrow and its gonna be so boring I need a good nights sleep to stay awake Oh How I love my trips to the Continence Advisory
> 
> have a good day at work hun


Ooh sounds fun! will speak to you later take care xxx


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

suzy93074 said:


> yes I know, luckily I get a discount on mine because we are a lower income but yes I can see your point and yes I can understand why you would be pissed off DT its like peoples pensions those that saved stamp money etc for years and now have lost all their pensions its disgraceful! but thats my point! why is the government targeting all of us!! there are soooo many other ways to reap back the debt! we should be questioning the goverment not getting at others which imo is what they want!!


Maybe they should have started on the prisons suzy! now had they have started there they would have got some real support! don't you think?


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Can i just make the point, why are the Government only targetting FAMILIES who earn that money, why have they not just increased the tax for EVERYONE earning over £45K  Clearly people without children will have a far greater disposable income just supporting themselves or 2 people.

Any system that sees people earning £80K a year still able to draw ch benefit whilst those on £45 can't is ridiculous IMO !!! 

And also why ringfence the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes for the pensioners, that is also a blanket benefit so Dame La La sitting in her 14 bedroom mansion gets her cheque and travel card  Oh yeah because thats their voter profile so we wouldnt want to upset them.

And to all you students out there, watch closely because looks like YOU are next. Seem to remember some of us warning about this and being told the Tories would look after everyone :lol:

Not once have i pleaded poverty on this thread and actually because of the ludicrous way they are going to implement this i will keep my Child benefit but i still believe that this is the wrong place for the government to start.


----------



## Lulu's owner (May 1, 2009)

Whatever anybody's views on this highly controversial topic, today's Mac cartoon in the Mail should raise a smile.

Mac on... Child benefit cuts | Mail Online


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Lulu's owner said:


> Whatever anybody's views on this highly controversial topic, today's Mac cartoon in the Mail should raise a smile.
> 
> Mac on... Child benefit cuts | Mail Online


:lol: at least we can laugh :lol: can't tax that .... yet :scared:


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

suzy93074 said:


> yes there are those DT and it is infuriating but stopping all benefits is therefore persecuting ALL people who need help and some people do genuinely need that help - I think its up to the government to put measures in place to stop people from just sitting having babies etc without hurting those that do need aid.


Ye limit the ammount of children they will pay cb to


----------



## Mum2Alfie (Jan 4, 2010)

Ohhh would love to earn £40k!!! I find it funny how guys with more money moan more. How does that work???


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I cannot understand why anyone thinks it is OK for people who are in work and earning enough to be in the 40% tax bracket to be receiving hand outs from the state.
> 
> Incredible.


Well i see it like this the high earners have paid into it, yet the ones that dont work have never worked havnt, so ok the high earners may not need it, but they are far more entitled to it.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

I do think its wrong for women to continue producing children while a single parent on benefits (i realise there will always be exceptions such as rape). 

I wonder though, what people think of disabled parents?

The fact that they are unable to work, doesnt mean they are innefective parents, however often the whole family is brought up on state money.

How do people feel about that?


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> I do think its wrong for women to continue producing children while a single parent on benefits (i realise there will always be exceptions such as rape).
> 
> I wonder though, what people think of disabled parents?
> 
> ...


This is one of the reasons why as I have stated I dont agree with just stopping benefits because then this ultimatley harms those that genuinely need it - I would never begrudge anyone help - who really needs it - we never know when we ourselves might need it - we dont know when our circumstances will change etc i.e., a break up of a relationship where the mother then has to give up work to look after the kids - all of these kinds of circumstances I fully back getting benefits for - I do think sometimes people on these kinds of threads lose compassion for others


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

suzy93074 said:


> This is one of the reasons why as I have stated I dont agree with just stopping benefits because then this ultimatley harms those that genuinely need it - I would never begrudge anyone help - who really needs it - we never know when we ourselves might need it - we dont know when our circumstances will change etc i.e., a break up of a relationship where the mother then has to give up work to look after the kids - all of these kinds of circumstances I fully back getting benefits for - I do think sometimes people on these kinds of threads lose compassion for others


if they ever had the compassion in the first place.

Its no secret i'm a single parent with a disabled child and on benefits. I didnt plan on being a single parent, i thought it was the sort of thing that happened to other people, not me, not my life! I too had the opinion that single mothers were lazy good for nothing sluts.... until i became part of the statistic and had to face up to the prejudice.

Now I'm at college, working to get a career that will support my children completely, without having to rely on the state or waiting for their dad to cough up.

However from what I have read on here (recently and on almost every thread), I am to be tarred and feathered and fed to the lions.

Ohh another thought too, all you taxpayers (remember i was one too and will be one again) paid out over half a million pounds for my sons treatment! Perhaps he should have been left to die, as he is so obviously worthless to you all..... :thumbsup:

What a fookin joke!


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

catz4m8z said:


> Nope, just daydreaming about earning over 44k a year.


And me if I was Earning that much I would'nt worry about not getting Child Benefit.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

> How do people feel about that?


I think that we can judge what kind of nation we are based on how we treat the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society and I think it is absolutely right to support you and your son through his disability and care. Though that shouldn't come as a shock given my status 'wet liberal'.... :lol:

Not entirely related to benefits but it always amazes me how society rejects the very people who need us most- as if they're lives aren't hard enough already. I mean are these sorts of people sociopaths, can they not experience empathy? It is something you no doubt will have experience Billyboysmammy. 

Again off topic, I always go to a charity cafe/restaurant that is almost entirely staffed by young people with learning disabilities. People that don't often get a chance in the employment sector. The food is great and the service is brilliant! I wish there were more places like this around the country.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> if they ever had the compassion in the first place.
> 
> Its no secret i'm a single parent with a disabled child and on benefits. I didnt plan on being a single parent, i thought it was the sort of thing that happened to other people, not me, not my life! I too had the opinion that single mothers were lazy good for nothing sluts.... until i became part of the statistic and had to face up to the prejudice.
> 
> ...


*As i said to someone else in a similar sittuation as yourself,imo the benefit system should be there as should society to give you and others in need,all the help you need.*


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> if they ever had the compassion in the first place.
> 
> Its no secret i'm a single parent with a disabled child and on benefits. I didnt plan on being a single parent, i thought it was the sort of thing that happened to other people, not me, not my life! I too had the opinion that single mothers were lazy good for nothing sluts.... until i became part of the statistic and had to face up to the prejudice.
> 
> ...


I can understand your frustration its horrible that everyone is tarred with the same brush I think we all at some point have been guilty of saying these things and we should take a step back and realise not everything is black and white - I take my hat off to you and other single mothers/fathers out there who are trying -esp with disabled children too - its not an easy job x


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> if they ever had the compassion in the first place.
> 
> Its no secret i'm a single parent with a disabled child and on benefits. I didnt plan on being a single parent, i thought it was the sort of thing that happened to other people, not me, not my life! I too had the opinion that single mothers were lazy good for nothing sluts.... until i became part of the statistic and had to face up to the prejudice.
> 
> ...


Nobody is getting at you and your family. Carers within the family, such as yourself are worth their weight in gold to our society. They are saving the government thousands every year just by giving their time, emotions and energy unbegrudgingly to the person that needs caring, a vastly underrated resource.

I usually stay away from these types of discussions and now I realise why I do but I can't stand by and let peeps spout such envy (not you BBM). Cripes, what mess would this country be in if all the 40%+ tax payers upped and left for far flung tax havens. Me and hubby have worked hard for what we have achieved, no handouts along the way, paid our taxes, knuckled down and just got on with it ... just to get slated for doing so its not a fookin joke, that's a complete farce


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I wonder though, what people think of disabled parents?
> 
> The fact that they are unable to work, doesnt mean they are innefective parents, however often the whole family is brought up on state money.


As someone who volunteers for a charity set up by a friend of mine who has a disabled daughter (now at university) for families of children with disabilities, I do understand some of the enormous strain it brings (as well as the rewards  ). I would say they reflect much of the rest of society (although it obviously also depends on the disabilities) in that some work, some don't. I do see how hard it can be and how stretching it is as a parent and how devoted these parents are.

I have said on several occasions I support the welfare state, I would hate to live in a society that does not support it's vulnerable members when they need it (and let's not forget, most of us will need it's help at some stage or other and not everyone is always vulnerable, it may be for a short while, or a bit longer, it may be in youth or old age). It is part of what being a civilised society is about. I do have a problem with people who milk the system though.

Just to get back on topic though regarding child benefit the figures quoted last night said that 85% of people who are eligible now will still get it. That means it will only be the top 15% of earners who are earning sufficient that they are paying a higher band of tax that will lose it. I can live with that.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Me and hubby have worked hard for what we have achieved, no handouts along the way, paid our taxes, knuckled down and just got on with it ... just to get slated for doing so its not a fookin joke, that's a complete farce


Sorry, I haven't read all the thread, but how are you getting slated?


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Sorry, I haven't read all the thread, but how are you getting slated?


Not me personally by name, just higher tax payers in general ... the posts about "ooooo can only dream of earning that amount" etc (this and the other thread)

Can only take so much of it  I'm not complaining about losing the CB, that's fair enough, cuts have to be made BUT I do have concerns that the higher tax brackets will get hit further down the line. I still have bills to pay and kids to feed after paying tax, think some people forget that


----------



## ~jo~ (Jan 10, 2009)

If we didnt send so much money out of the country and imigration was delt with more effectivly( as in only a small ammount) then there would be more money for the people who need it! 
If i came into the country from else were i would get a house and funding for what education i wanted, as of now i dont, and i have always worked apart from having my little girl, my hubby supported me so we didnt recieve any benifits.
Makes me fume!! people should not have voted the tories in....you make your bed lay in it


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> yet the ones that dont work have never worked havnt, so ok the high earners may not need it, but they are far more entitled to it.


Hold on a second, I think there is some confusion here. There are plenty of people who earn less than £45K and work hard and pay their taxes too. Why are they seen as undeserving of it. The majority of people probably fall into that bracket - the one between not working and earning £45K so they will continue to get it.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

snoopydo said:


> And me if I was Earning that much I would'nt worry about not getting Child Benefit.


I wouldnt worry either, but i would be bloody peeved that yet again its been taken off the ones that have helped put it there in the first place and will continue to do so, no i wouldnt want it taken off the low earners, but i want to see some kind of responsibility given to the idle dont work, wont work members of our society because they never get cuts just given more and more, and its excepted as if its a right.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

As I have said before I do not begrudge people that genuinely deserve benefits. But what does get me is those that earn over a certain amount are continually being targetted to the degree that their wage packets get less and less. 

After tax and NI my hubby takes home practically half of what his gross salary is. Yes and we are lucky blah blah blah but it is getting to the stage where we are seriously thinking is it worth it? Is it worth working 60 hours a week, flying all over the world at the expense of not seeing your young daughters grow up? All for the government to take more of our hard earned cash and other peeps saying well yeah they can afford it. Well what if we started to do 9 to 5 jobs, taking a pay cut, and many more follow suit....What if we emigrate to Countries that pay us the same but tax us much less (and beleive me this is happening A LOT)...Well all these people that 'can afford it' wont be earning it any more,....then where will the money come from?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> no i wouldnt want it taken off the low earners, but i want to see some kind of responsibility given to the idle dont work, wont work members of our society because they never get cuts just given more and more, and its excepted as if its a right.


I don't disagree with you, but that is a different issue to cutting child benefit for high earners. I'm delighted that they will be capping benefits - long overdue IMO when in London people can get £1000's in rent paid for them. It's completely ridiculous that it was allowed to get so out of hand.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> As I have said before I do not begrudge people that genuinely deserve benefits. But what does get me is those that earn over a certain amount are continually being targetted to the degree that their wage packets get less and less.


It's happening to everyone not just high earners. My income has gone down considerably in this credit crunch. The fact is that those on high incomes are cushioned much more than those on lower incomes.

The fact is that these are hard times for everyone (except seemingling the very wealthy - how a labour goverment was able to widen the gap between rich and poor is beyond me  ). Even those whose income is stable are worse off as the cost of living is increasing.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

gorgeous said:


> As I have said before I do not begrudge people that genuinely deserve benefits. But what does get me is those that earn over a certain amount are continually being targetted to the degree that their wage packets get less and less.
> 
> After tax and NI my hubby takes home practically half of what his gross salary is. Yes and we are lucky blah blah blah but it is getting to the stage where we are seriously thinking is it worth it? Is it worth working 60 hours a week, flying all over the world at the expense of not seeing your young daughters grow up? All for the government to take more of our hard earned cash and other peeps saying well yeah they can afford it. Well what if we started to do 9 to 5 jobs, taking a pay cut, and many more follow suit....What if we emigrate to Countries that pay us the same but tax us much less (and beleive me this is happening A LOT)...Well all these people that 'can afford it' wont be earning it any more,....then where will the money come from?


You have my sympathy hun, going back to when i was with my ex, a payrise put him into the 40% bracket... which meant his take home pay was much much less.... It just didnt seem worth the promotion.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I don't disagree with you, but that is a different issue to cutting child benefit for high earners. I'm delighted that they will be capping benefits - long overdue IMO when in London people can get £1000's in rent paid for them. It's completely ridiculous that it was allowed to get so out of hand.


Ime looking at the oposite ends of the scale here the high earners and the none earners, none earners being the ones that earn no money through choice, they are the once sitting pretty. The ones anywhere inbetween are the ones that deserve it and the high earners, earn it not just for themselves but for the lazy. Whatever happened to the "you only ever get out what you put in"


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> and the high earners, earn it not just for themselves but for the lazy. Whatever happened to the "you only ever get out what you put in"


Unfortunately, life is never that clear cut - you don't always get out what you put in. The difference between an average to decent living wage earner and a high earner could simply be the industry/type of job that they have gone into. Both could be equally hard working. That is why a certain degree of redistribution is fair. That and the fact that a civilised society does look after it's vulnerable.


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

~jo~ said:


> If we didnt send so much money out of the country and imigration was delt with more effectivly( as in only a small ammount) then there would be more money for the people who need it!
> If i came into the country from else were i would get a house and funding for what education i wanted, as of now i dont, and i have always worked apart from having my little girl, my hubby supported me so we didnt recieve any benifits.
> Makes me fume!! people should not have voted the tories in....you make your bed lay in it


What was the alternative...more of saddo Brown and his lot...no thanks.

It wasn't the Tories who flooded the country with illegals and immigrants,and threw tens of millions at countries that can afford nuclear weapons and space programmes.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2010)

gorgeous said:


> As I have said before I do not begrudge people that genuinely deserve benefits. But what does get me is those that earn over a certain amount are continually being targetted to the degree that their wage packets get less and less.
> 
> After tax and NI my hubby takes home practically half of what his gross salary is. Yes and we are lucky blah blah blah but it is getting to the stage where we are seriously thinking is it worth it? Is it worth working 60 hours a week, flying all over the world at the expense of not seeing your young daughters grow up? All for the government to take more of our hard earned cash and other peeps saying well yeah they can afford it. Well what if we started to do 9 to 5 jobs, taking a pay cut, and many more follow suit....What if we emigrate to Countries that pay us the same but tax us much less (and beleive me this is happening A LOT)...Well all these people that 'can afford it' wont be earning it any more,....then where will the money come from?


Thats just how I feel! 30 years ago my other half used to earn what some folk today would consider an obsene amount of money But it came with a price! having no home life, never knowing where your bed would be that night and being on call 24/7


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> It wasn't the Tories who flooded the country with illegals and immigrants,and threw tens of millions at countries that can afford nuclear weapons and space programmes.


Or widened the gap between the rich and the poor. Deregulated the banks which not only cause the rocketing house prices but caused the bubble which has now burst and we are having to deal with the consequences.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Unfortunately, life is never that clear cut - you don't always get out what you put in. The difference between an average to decent living wage earner and a high earner could simply be the industry/type of job that they have gone into. Both could be equally hard working. That is why a certain degree of redistribution is fair. That and the fact that a civilised society does look after it's vulnerable.


But the ones ime talking about arnt vulnerable, they are the ones that dont want to work.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> But the ones ime talking about arnt vulnerable, they are the ones that dont want to work.


No, and I agree with you there - although watch this space I don't think they will escape  although the difficulty will be implementing it.


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

gorgeous said:


> As I have said before I do not begrudge people that genuinely deserve benefits. But what does get me is those that earn over a certain amount are continually being targetted to the degree that their wage packets get less and less.
> 
> After tax and NI my hubby takes home practically half of what his gross salary is. Yes and we are lucky blah blah blah but it is getting to the stage where we are seriously thinking is it worth it? Is it worth working 60 hours a week, flying all over the world at the expense of not seeing your young daughters grow up? All for the government to take more of our hard earned cash and other peeps saying well yeah they can afford it. Well what if we started to do 9 to 5 jobs, taking a pay cut, and many more follow suit....What if we emigrate to Countries that pay us the same but tax us much less (and beleive me this is happening A LOT)...Well all these people that 'can afford it' wont be earning it any more,....then where will the money come from?


Given you rep for that :thumbup:

Remind me to phone my housekeeper in my Florida mansion to tell her I'll be flying out a week on Tuesday :lol: :lol: I'm joking 



DoubleTrouble said:


> Thats just how I feel! 30 years ago my other half used to earn what some folk today would consider an obsene amount of money But it came with a price! having no home life, never knowing where your bed would be that night and being on call 24/7


Been there  Only benefit was Virgin Airmiles


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Or widened the gap between the rich and the poor. Deregulated the banks which not only cause the rocketing house prices but caused the bubble which has now burst and we are having to deal with the consequences.


It's criminal and i think thats were the anger on here comes from, doesn't matter what you earn noone wants to clear up someone elses mess and thats what it feels like, somehow being punished for something most people could see coming but were helpless to prevent.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> With an average income in this country of £25K, I think it fair. £44K is a good income (or combined income). I needed every penny of my child benefit when bringing up my kids, which is what it should be for, not storing away as a nest egg for when the children are older as so many do.
> 
> Really, it was introduced as an income for mothers in the days before the worked, to ensure they had some money (as the husbands were the only earners). Those days are long gone, so it doesn't seem unreasonble to me to rethink it and only give it to those that need it.


i agree, i think you have to earn over £850 aweek.Bloody hell id like to earn over that much, not suprised thy are making the change.The goverment might even sort there money factors out and start saving.I think its a totally great idea.But i guess not for some.All we ever do is save money..


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

I'd like £850 a week to bring my family up on please 

I manage on a take home wage of £1k a month (and my rent and council tax take over half of it straight away) yes we do get child tax credits and a small amount of working tax We last yr took a drop of £300 a month through oh's work dropping night shift and were still not entitled to anything else same as now


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

westie~ma said:


> Not me personally by name, just higher tax payers in general ... the posts about "ooooo can only dream of earning that amount" etc (this and the other thread)
> 
> Can only take so much of it  I'm not complaining about losing the CB, that's fair enough, cuts have to be made BUT I do have concerns that the higher tax brackets will get hit further down the line. I still have bills to pay and kids to feed after paying tax, think some people forget that


Well I have said "oohh can only dream of earning that" only cos i would love to earn that lol  I still think its unfair that these people are being hit and penalised - I in no way judge anyone who earns over a certain amount - they do so by working hard  xx


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

Think the top and bottom of it is again the Govenment have targeted the wrong section of society!
They should wage war on the real scrougers! Those that have been on benifits for a long period of time without a cat in hells chance of pulling their weight!

Using children as an excuse is NOT *always* a reason not to work!
but what fits my profile of a scrouger is a family who have been on full benifits for five years plus, and who are *STILL* churning our babies! (coz lets admit it they CAN be a meal ticket) Lets start on them that have been on benifits for say longer then ten years plus and have STILL maganed to churn out children during that time! T'is easy!! give them three months notice and STOP all benifits!

DT


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

actually DT i agree with you.... now dont faint!

Benefits stop once your youngest child reaches 9, however... there is nothing to stop a scrounger continually churning out babies until they reach the menopause!

I dont know what the answer is, as its not the poor childrens faults... and with parents like that they deserve all the help they can get, but what to do about the parents?

I dont know what the answer is. I dont want to see the children suffer (which they certainly would do if you removed their parents only source of income), but i dont want to see more parents sitting on their asses not bothering.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> actually DT i agree with you.... now dont faint!
> 
> Benefits stop once your youngest child reaches 9, however... there is nothing to stop a scrounger continually churning out babies until they reach the menopause!
> 
> ...


What about Vouchers BBM, a small amount of cold hard cash but vouchers for essentials like food and clothing. Then they have to apply for a bigger voucher for things like a TV, cooker etc, extra ones at christmas again for specific shops so it gets spent on the kids. Child benefit could be given as a voucher instead of cash too, directly for the children then no spending it on **** and booze 

Yes there used to be a stigma attached to this sort of thing but needs must. It would at least make sure the money went on the right things. There are alot of people on benefits and the kids still have an appalling standard of living. If we are talking about ensuring the sick and vulnerable get exactly what they need then maybe this is the way 

I am sure alot of large retailers would sign up to this


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

Vouchers for food etc.=Instant black market.
Ask anyone who remembers rationing during and after the war.
Drug addicts would sell their mothers for a fix,let alone vouchers.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Certainly is my daughters case the father is not contributing! And he does not even have the children if my daughter is working away! I have just been down there for three days! She is totally alone, the cost of having to have a baby sitter stay over for three days would have cost her £360.


I understand, I have been there, and could never afford that. But we manage somehow. The nearest family I had was 2 hours away.

But, £44K is still a well above average wage.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I understand, I have been there, and could never afford that. But we manage somehow. The nearest family I had was 2 hours away.
> 
> But, £44K is still a well above average wage.


Heres is actually quite a lot more then that Rocco! but she pays 40% tax, It sounds a lot I agree, but when you take of the stopages you would be surpised !


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

A £44k salary has stopages of £11,728pa for those who are interested!


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

> Family allowance since its introductionit has been payable to EVERY child (was with the exception of the first) It were NEVER a hardship benifit!


You are correct but to my mind "benefits" are not for people who are earning good money.

It was originally to give women some control of the finances to feed and clothe their children when men held all the cards, that isn't happening today. Women are as capable of working as any man and so many have their own income.

I am all for giving the money to any woman who found herself in that situation but I do not feel that in this day and age we should be handing out money as pocket money for bored housewives, hairdressing/entertainment fund or for treats, toys and DVDs, or for money to fund a new business, or for birthday gifts for when her son was invited to parties, all reasons I have heard from people complaining about losing it and all of which have an incoming wage of >£44 000.

In this time of hardship and a huge national debt, then I am sorry but things have to be done. This will not be the only thing that people will get upset about and it is bound to get worse, so I find it is laughable that such a furore is being kicked up now over *in general* rich women's pocket money as this is the tip of the iceberg and we all had better get used to it.


----------



## Lulu's owner (May 1, 2009)

I followed this thread till halfway through and I can see that there are some people who think £44,000 is a king's ransom and others who view it as a pittance, two irreconcilable viewpoints.

I have no strong views, not having children, but I suppose child benefit is society's recognition that having children and raising them is of value to all of us.

If moderately well off people have to pay more (rather than taxing the bankers who got us in this mess) why not just put higher rate income tax up by 2p or 5p or whatever?


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> You are correct but to my mind "benefits" are not for people who are earning good money.
> 
> It was originally to give women some control of the finances to feed and clothe their children when men held all the cards, that isn't happening today. Women are as capable of working as any man and so many have their own income.
> 
> ...


Before it was called child benifit it was actually called Family allowance! and THAT was what was introduced as you so rightly say to ensure that the woman got the money!
But prior to that (when I had my children) the may used to get an additional tax allowance for each and every child so in effect he paid less tax on his annual income!

Now a single parent does NOT get that! they are taxed as any other adult are! Take the family allowance away yes! but increase the amount of tax free income they are allowed!

To be quite honest with you someone sat very close to me had stoppages of 
£22,388 last year and to be quit honest with you I am mega p*ssed of that EVEN one penny of this goes to the idle barstools who have never done a days graft in their lives and think that them of us who can afford it should pay for them to get the leg over! Sorry if I have offended but thats how I feel! And the do gooders can bat on all they like my vieWs are not going to change! NEVER!


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

That's even more than what my OH earns DT that's crazy!!!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

Lulu's owner said:


> I followed this thread till halfway through and I can see that there are some people who think £44,000 is a king's ransom and others who view it as a pittance, two irreconcilable viewpoints.
> 
> I have no strong views, not having children, but I suppose child benefit is society's recognition that having children and raising them is of value to all of us.
> 
> If moderately well off people have to pay more (rather than taxing the bankers who got us in this mess) why not just put higher rate income tax up by 2p or 5p or whatever?


Great post! now seeing has the bankers have been mentioned why have they not been targeted! just paying back the bail out money would be a start!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

The bottom line is that 85% of people with children will still get child benefit. The top 15% of wage earners will not. The anomoly that a couple who each earn £43K and therefore with a combined income of £86K can still get it whereas a single parent of £44K+ does not - that is not fair, but the fact that it only affects 15% of earners means that it is only the top earners that are being affected.



> To be quite honest with you someone sat very close to me had stoppages of
> £22,388 last year and to be quit honest with you I am mega p*ssed of that EVEN one penny of this goes to the idle barstools who have never done a days graft in their lives and think that them of us who can afford it should pay for them to get the leg over! Sorry if I have offended but thats how I feel! And the do gooders can bat on all they like my vieWs are not going to change! NEVER!


I agree, but would only say... 'what this space'. The difficulty is going to be how to differentiate between those who are not working due to idleness and those who cannot find work or cannot work because they are not capable of it. Not all people who are not working are idle and at no time is this more true than in the current climate.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> The bottom line is that 85% of people with children will still get child benefit. The top 15% of wage earners will not. The anomoly that a couple who each earn £43K and therefore with a combined income of £86K can still get it whereas a single parent of £44K+ does not - that is not fair, but the fact that it only affects 15% of earners means that it is only the top earners that are being affected.
> 
> I agree, but would only say... 'what this space'. The difficulty is going to be how to differentiate between those who are not working due to idleness and those who cannot find work or cannot work because they are not capable of it. Not all people who are not working are idle and at no time is this more true than in the current climate.


Rocco! re your first point! that is my arguement! and in our circumstances affects my daughter!

Re your second point! I have absolusty no problem with people being on benifits! The TYPE I am against are as I said way back those that are long term claimants, they see churning out babies even year as an occupation, have never done a days graft in their lifes, when it looks like they may have to go to work they produce another !! These are the folk I am against! 10 years plus and NEVER doing a days work , even a blind man can see what they are playing at! There benefits should stop! no questions asked! enoughts enough! My method of dealing with it ain't that kind (the compulsory sapying and castrating) but how anyone can EVER think these scroungers should keep taking is beyond me! it really is! 
DT


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

Im going to lose mine my hubby is self employed and works long hours(14 hours some days) and i do not work due to health reasons so why should we be punished?


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

cav said:


> Im going to lose mine my hubby is self employed and works long hours(14 hours some days) and i do not work due to health reasons so why should we be punished?


Change you accountant and learn to cook!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> The TYPE I am against are as I said way back those that are long term claimants, they see churning out babies even year as an occupation, have never done a days graft in their lifes, when it looks like they may have to go to work they produce another !! These are the folk I am against! 10 years plus and NEVER doing a days work , even a blind man can see what they are playing at! There benefits should stop! no questions asked! enoughts enough! My method of dealing with it ain't that kind (the compulsory sapying and castrating) but how anyone can EVER think these scroungers should keep taking is beyond me! it really is!


I would say you, me and everyone else except those that are like that


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I would say you, me and everyone else except those that are like that


So why have they not been targeted FIRST?


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Change you accountant and learn to cook!


year but DT the lazy sods that never done a days work will still get there child benefit 
i think if we have children we should all be treated the same

i do like my friday night takeaway and a few bottles of wine


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I would say you, me and everyone else except those that are like that


and it would be dead easy to stop their child benifit! Like they have with those on £44k ! Introduce it now saying that from 2012 anyone who has claimed benifits, because they have NOT worked and are NOT ill) for say five years plus and produced children in that time that the child benifit for all children will be withdrawn!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> So why have they not been targeted FIRST?


I would guess cos it's gonna take a h*ll of a job devising a system that won't affect those that are genuine, especially during this period when more and more are losing their jobs.

Cameron mentioned it today, but it won't be an easy task. Even sorting the tax credits out will take some thinking through. My feeling is that this has been announced first because it is straightforward.

And, even though it is one of the first cuts to be announced, it isn't actually going to come into effect for another 3 years.


----------



## Full-Iron (Jul 3, 2010)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Change you accountant and learn to cook!


.. I know a good dog trainer. :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I would guess cos it's gonna take a h*ll of a job devising a system that won't affect those that are genuine, especially during this period when more and more are losing their jobs.
> 
> Cameron mentioned it today, but it won't be an easy task. Even sorting the tax credits out will take some thinking through. My feeling is that this has been announced first because it is straightforward.
> 
> And, even though it is one of the first cuts to be announced, it isn't actually going to come into effect for another 3 years.


Yep!Q spect they have the three years grace to get used to it!

BUT! I don't agree with you on being able to sort out the needy from the greedy Rocco!

Think about it!
You have a Single person or a couple! They are claiming full housing benifit, together with whatever else the government give you have NEVER worked, but have managed to produce at least four children over a short period of time! I think if someone has been on benifits for five years plus and have produced say three chilren in five years then they are extracting the urine!

guess it is the producing more children that gets my back up! We decided we could only afford two!


----------



## nfp20 (Jun 29, 2010)

DoubleTrouble said:


> and it would be dead easy to stop their child benifit! Like they have with those on £44k ! Introduce it now saying that from 2012 anyone who has claimed benifits, because they have NOT worked and are NOT ill) for say five years plus and produced children in that time that the child benifit for all children will be withdrawn!


Question to ask then is who are you punishing in the long run?? The adult or the child?

Remember Child Benefit is meant to be for children to keep them out of the worst cases of poverty to make sure that they have the basics like food, clothing and shelter. It is not a huge amount of money the government would save more sorting out their tax errors but this is a universal benefit (one of the few where we are as families all equals in society) and it is an easy hit.

I am all for punishing adults who take advantage of the system but punishing a child for the actions of the parent??? Not a world I want to live in, I'm proud of our countries way of helping others in our communities, if we go back to the days of not helping to support those in need where will we be for the sake of the few who take advantage??

Back with the workhouses??????? Is that the answer?? A step back in time? I would hope not.

I am all for fairness if £44,000 is to be the limit then it should be for all not just a punishment for being a single family - how many men leave their families for selfish reasons?? Read any of the baby forums and you'll find a huge number either during the pregnancy stage or the first couple of years when baby is demanding and being a couple can go out the window, disappearing and leaving the mother to raise their children with little or no assistance or still behaving like children themselves some spending their money on themselves leaving NOTHING for their partner and child except that child benefit. The men get away with it again and their families are penalised by a lower income and stigma from their own government... I thought we had moved on from this nonsense.

I am starting to wonder if DC has actually looked at our society? At the cost of marriage which is prohibitive forcing people to live together rather than to marry, the number of children in classes who are from single or multi parent households, the increased number of children from broken homes some of which are violent and have a safety issue?

Face facts our society is not that of the pre war era and you cannot force society to take a step back by a few tax incentives and pennies in the bank.

Wishful thinking and irresponsible.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

gorgeous said:


> Lauren I do not know where you live, job, family way, etc etc....
> 
> But I can tell you the living conditions and costs in certain parts of the UK are astronomical.
> 
> ...


You and me too Mrs!
Your friend on £55k pa will have £16,238 stopages pa!
Enought to keep a scrouging family in booze and **** for a year I guess!

Stop their child benifit in 2013 by all means! but stop their deductions too!


----------



## wooliewoo (May 27, 2008)

Doesnt effect me yet but still got time for hubby to get a pay rise. On paper i do agree with some points but its the way its being done. I would of thought it better if they said households with an income in excess of £55k (figure from top of head) wont get child benefit.
The way it is at moment you can have a household income of £80k and still get it (if both parents earn £40k a year each)


Im a registered carer so that extra money is used to pay for school trips & school related stuff inc uniform etc. (My 15 yr olds school decided that all yr 10-11 kids have to have laptops)



You know what .....i reckon the Government should spend an hour or so talking to real "working" familys:001_cool:


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

wooliewoo said:


> You know what .....i reckon the Government should spend an hour or so talking to real "working" familys:001_cool:


Dont hold your breath... its the concervatives after all!


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

billyboysmammy said:


> Dont hold your breath... its the concervatives after all!


And the last lot listened didn't they? Oh yes.....


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

poohdog said:


> And the last lot listened didn't they? Oh yes.....


What alternatives are there?


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

I'm holding a conservatory party here this next week!
All welcome!


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> goregeous and double trouble - I understand your examples - I too brought out children without the financial help of an exhusband and live in London. Not easy - never had much of a life myself because I couldn't afford it (even if I had the energy), my children had to come first - it was rob Peter to pay Paul for the best part of 18 years!
> 
> But, in both your examples there are men that should be contributing. Don't get me wrong - I know it's hard - mine never did and my kids are in their 20's now. But I still cannot see how a salary of over £44 is not considered a good one. After all, this puts them in the top 20% of earners - how do you think the rest of us manage?


1. Firstly yes the man should be contributing, but he aint so my friend is left with the bills and bringing up her son.

2. Look at my examples - I never said her salary is not a good one, but with the amount she has to pay out she has not got a lot left. She could actually give up work, and have everything paid for her.

And my friend is not in the minority. There will be plenty of folks - single Mothers, Single Fathers, plus married couples in that wage bracket and they are the ones with similar outgoings etc etc....

Do you not think people like my friend should be cut some slack? Do you not think she is contributing enough by giving away almost half of her salary to tax and National Insurance? Surely she should be able to keep her family allowance which incidentally is spent on her son?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> 1. Firstly yes the man should be contributing, but he aint so my friend is left with the bills and bringing up her son.


I know - I've been there, done it and got the t-shirt. I'm not without sympathy. The CSA are useless and something needs to be done.



> 2. Look at my examples - I never said her salary is not a good one, but with the amount she has to pay out she has not got a lot left. She could actually give up work, and have everything paid for her.


Been there done it got the tshirt  I actually would have been better off not working and bringing up my children, but I didn't want to. I felt they were my responsibility (and there father's but he disappeared into the woodwork so it was left to me). I went without for a long time, but I now have pride in my children - one just completed his masters and they other on course for a 1st class degree. I can just about breathe a sigh of relief and start to live again. That's life - and I'm not the only one.



> And my friend is not in the minority. There will be plenty of folks - single Mothers, Single Fathers, plus married couples in that wage bracket and they are the ones with similar outgoings etc etc....


I know she's not but if they are struggling - how do you think people who are earning half that manage?



> Do you not think people like my friend should be cut some slack? Do you not think she is contributing enough by giving away almost half of her salary to tax and National Insurance? Surely she should be able to keep her family allowance which incidentally is spent on her son?


If this one the only thing they were going to cut then I could understand - but it won't be EVERYONE will feel it and everyone will want to be cut some slack. I'm not unsympathetic, but there are people far, far worse off and struggling. I would love that everyone could keep their family allowance - I think it unfair that double earners (whether married or not) get to keep it with a much larger income, but I can see the complexity and expense to implement that would be too much. The bottom line is that your friend is in the TOP 15% of earners and yes, I do believe that those who are able and earn more should contribute more to society than those on lower incomes.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I know - I've been there, done it and got the t-shirt. I'm not without sympathy. The CSA are useless and something needs to be done.
> 
> Been there done it got the tshirt  I actually would have been better off not working and bringing up my children, but I didn't want to. I felt they were my responsibility (and there father's but he disappeared into the woodwork so it was left to me). I went without for a long time, but I now have pride in my children - one just completed his masters and they other on course for a 1st class degree. I can just about breathe a sigh of relief and start to live again. That's life - and I'm not the only one.
> 
> ...


These Top earners as you put it, contribute far too much as it is. The lazy buggers that sit on their backsides should contribute more -either keep their legs together or get a job - both preferrably.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> The lazy buggers that sit on their backsides should contribute more -either keep their legs together or get a job - both preferrably.


Don't think anyone disagrees with that - including the govt if DC speech was anything to go by. But what about the genuinely unemployed? What about those who cannot work due to disability, illness etc. There are a lot of people working the system, but there are a lot of genuine people too. Are you saying forget them?

I'm glad I don't live in a society that let's it's vulnerable rot, but it would seem high earners seem to resent contributing to society.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Don't think anyone disagrees with that - including the govt if DC speech was anything to go by. But what about the genuinely unemployed? What about those who cannot work due to disability, illness etc. There are a lot of people working the system, but there are a lot of genuine people too. Are you saying forget them?
> 
> I'm glad I don't live in a society that let's it's vulnerable rot, but it would seem high earners seem to resent contributing to society.


I would not think all high earners resent contributing to society...

I think people who cannot work for genuine medical reasons should get some help...but the people who cant be arsed to get out of bed should not ..some mornings i cant be arsed to get out of bed, but i do..its all about having a little self respect..

juliex


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

gorgeous said:


> These Top earners as you put it, contribute far too much as it is. The lazy buggers that sit on their backsides should contribute more -either keep their legs together or get a job - both preferrably.


Hear Hear!!:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Don't think anyone disagrees with that - including the govt if DC speech was anything to go by. But what about the genuinely unemployed? What about those who cannot work due to disability, illness etc. There are a lot of people working the system, but there are a lot of genuine people too. Are you saying forget them?
> 
> I'm glad I don't live in a society that let's it's vulnerable rot, but it would seem high earners seem to resent contributing to society.


Read all of my previous posts - all along I have always said that whomever GENUINELY needs benefits then they should continue to be entitled to them.

High earners certainly do not resent contributing to society. But they do resent being taken the pee out of.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> Don't think anyone disagrees with that - including the govt if DC speech was anything to go by. But what about the genuinely unemployed? What about those who cannot work due to disability, illness etc. There are a lot of people working the system, but there are a lot of genuine people too. Are you saying forget them?
> 
> I'm glad I don't live in a society that let's it's vulnerable rot, but it would seem high earners seem to resent contributing to society.


The government may not agree with it but they have CERTAINLY done nothing cast iron to stop it! Do you know how many families on long term benifits out there have four or more children! there are actualy 928 familes with 8 plus children who are longterm benifit claimants - but what really extracts the urine is when you LEARN that many of these children were fathered whilst these families were in receipt of benifit! One can only assume they have too much time on their hands!

Do I think high earners should have subsedise these idle barstools! NO I BL**DY DONT as I guess you don't so why havn't the government stepped in here yet then! Oh but I forgot!! they have they have made the maximum benifit any family can claim £500 per week!

£500 per week is equivlent to a salary of around £34,000pa! BEFORE TAX!! remember the £500 i tax free!! Now someone! please remind me of the average wage!

IT STILL STINKS!!


----------



## Lulu's owner (May 1, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I'm glad I don't live in a society that let's it's vulnerable rot, but it would seem high earners seem to resent contributing to society.


I actually do agree with the point you're making, but you've also said you have little sympathy with those who are in the top 15% of earners (by which I presume you mean people on £44,000 gross and above). This certainly would be a lot of money for a single person living in a cheap home up north.

However, according to official government ONS figures, the median full-time wage for a male in 2009 was £531 a week (and was even higher in London) and £426 for a woman. Therefore the median income for a fulltime working couple was £49,764 per year. This puts a single household income of £44,000 into context, doesn't it?

The median is a more valuable statistic than the average because it shows what people are really earning. It means half are earning more, half are earning less, and these people are in the middle. An average can be skewed by people at the top earning a fortune.


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

Should I book for the Seychelles on my £105 a week pension? 

I love these average wages...when I was eighteen I was on £8 a week...the 'average' then was £16 which I guess was car workers and miners on the face...I never ever got it.


----------



## Lulu's owner (May 1, 2009)

poohdog said:


> Should I book for the Seychelles on my £105 a week pension?
> 
> I love these average wages...when I was eighteen I was on £8 a week...the 'average' then was £16 which I guess was car workers and miners on the face...I never ever got it.


Hang on a minute, that's why I quoted the median and not the average. I agree that the average is misleading but the median is more accurate.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

poohdog said:


> Should I book for the Seychelles on my £105 a week pension?
> 
> .


you'll be lucky to afford a week in Skeggy mate


----------



## Lulu's owner (May 1, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> you'll be lucky to afford a week in Skeggy mate


However, there is such a thing as the guaranteed minimum income, thankfully, which means that no pensioner is expected to live on such a tiny amount (subject to savings) so without getting too personal I doubt that this is all this poster's household income amounts too.


----------



## JD baby (Oct 2, 2010)

It was on the news this morning that they plan on clamping down on families who rely benefits and have loads of kids. They are saying they shouldn't recieve more money than the average family gets in wages.

I think they are doing the right thing there, too many people make a career out of having kids they cant afford and expect the state to keep them.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

JD baby said:


> It was on the news this morning that they plan on clamping down on families who rely benefits and have loads of kids. They are saying they shouldn't recieve more money than the average family gets in wages.
> 
> I think they are doing the right thing there, too many people make a career out of having kids they cant afford and expect the state to keep them.


Hallabl**dyluya!:thumbup::thumbup:
But you know what the sad thing is!
It have taken them that run our country twenty years to work that one out!
Not much hope for us then really is there!


----------



## Lulu's owner (May 1, 2009)

JD baby said:


> It was on the news this morning that they plan on clamping down on families who rely benefits and have loads of kids. They are saying they shouldn't recieve more money than the average family gets in wages.
> 
> I think they are doing the right thing there, too many people make a career out of having kids they cant afford and expect the state to keep them.


That would be a good topic for a new thread!


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

Lulu's owner said:


> That would be a good topic for a new thread!


Wouldn't it just! go start one lulu:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

JD baby said:


> It was on the news this morning that they plan on clamping down on families who rely benefits and have loads of kids. They are saying they shouldn't recieve more money than the average family gets in wages.
> 
> I think they are doing the right thing there, too many people make a career out of having kids they cant afford and expect the state to keep them.


Sounds like a good idea to me:thumbup:


----------



## JD baby (Oct 2, 2010)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Hallabl**dyluya!:thumbup::thumbup:
> But you know what the sad thing is!
> It have taken them that run our country twenty years to work that one out!
> Not much hope for us then really is there!


Thats true, they have waited that long that lots of kids with lazy parents will suffer cos I still cant see them getting off their arses and finding a job!


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

JD baby said:


> Thats true, they have waited that long that lots of kids with lazy parents will suffer cos I still cant see them getting off their arses and finding a job!


Thing is JD many kids from these families are following in their parents footsteps! They see this support as their right! Guess many are brought up to con the system!


----------



## JD baby (Oct 2, 2010)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Thing is JD many kids from these families are following in their parents footsteps! They see this support as their right! Guess many are brought up to con the system!


I know and thats sad, I hope this really changes things!


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Can i just say i absolutely do not begrudge contributing to society quite the opposite, i am a HUGE believer in the principals of the welfare state but my money is NOT going to the person down the road struggling to bring up 2 kids because partner buggered off or those fantasic people who devote their lives to caring for sick, disabled, elderly relatives, they are saints IMO, NO my money is going to solve a problem i neither contributed to nor created nor got rich off !!!!! THATS what irks me 

FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION !!!! what ROT, were the Government thinking of the good of the nation when they practically bankrupt us  Were they considering the furture of my family when they encouraged people to borrow money they didn't have which we have always been careful not to do ???? No they bloody weren't but hey ho yeah i will just hand all my tax over to them AND swallow my tax credit loss (which i might add hit the self same families this Ch Benefit removal will) AND lose my Ch Benefit with a big grin on my face because it's FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION whilst all the while doing all the things society needs me to do to bring up my kids and ensure they are useful to society in the future !!! 

£44K a year less deductions less approx £18K per year for mortgage, utilities, Insurances, ctax etc (which include paying for policies to cover accident and illness so we are NOT reliant on the state if something goes wrong) 

We both have to run a car for our work so add petrol and running costs of that plus the expense of having children, clothes, shoes (at £30 a pair at least every 6 months yes £60 if you have 2 kids) and you do not end up "rolling in it" as some suggest. Clearly there are those even worse off, that will always be the case, thats not exactly an argument for taking more off those slightly better off.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Thing is JD many kids from these families are following in their parents footsteps! They see this support as their right! Guess many are brought up to con the system!


WE have a family near us..she is having about her 9th now...the pair of them have never ever worked...the older children now bring up the younger ones while she just walks about preggers all the time...the kids are just let roam the streets from a very young age...what future have these kids got...there is a good chance it will be just the same as the parents..


----------

