Child benefit cuts
 

Sorry but should people whos household income is at least £44,000 really be whinging about not getting an extra £50 a week? They need to look at the bigger picture, there are people out there living off child benefits altogether with no extra income

Do what I heard suggested today, Women who just sit at home and have 5-6 kids, well only let them get benefits for only two children.

50?

Its £20.30 for the first qualifying child then £13.40 for each qualifying child after that.

It doesnt really make much difference to people with over 44 grand a year does it? Unless their budget counts on it.

There is the slight disparity that a family with a single earner earning £45 thousand wont get it. Yet a family with two earners earning up to £80+ thousand between them will.

But the line for qualifying had to be drawn somewhere. Maybe the govt should have said total family earnings over 44 grand.

I agree, whatever qualifying limit they would have said there would have been uproar, it was a lose lose situation. At least they've given plenty of notice though.

People who earn over 44k can still have debt.

What is basically pocket money to said people isn't going to solve their debts

I agree that it should be total earnings rather than one persons earnings but the way the media are going on about it you'd think they're axing half of their salary and its the end of the world instead of them just not getting child benefit anymore

I dont think thats the issue though, I just think its tougher for someone on say 20K to lose that money rather than someone on 44K who could budget to deal with the loss of the money...

Well, cutbacks have to be made...

Well maybe if you ever know someone who earns over 44k and isn't in the picture perfect idea everyone seems to have that their loaded you'll think differently.

yeah, my mum. She never claimed child benefit and was perfectly comfortable

me & my girlfriend don't even earn £44k between us and we're fine with a lot of excess and probably won't claim should we have a kid

its not so much being loaded, just more being comfortable and such a small amount of money (to some) is going to make minimal difference

Your mum isn't the advertisment for every person who earns over 44k in the world.

So? I'm just putting a point across that you can earn that much money and still live a comfortable life without the need for benefits. If you get into debt when you earn high amounts then its your own fault, you should live by your means instead of wanting what you cant have. the 'poorest' people affected by this will be earning £2800 minimum per month after tax, do you really think child benefit is going to bridge a gap between being in debt and not being in debt?

I'm not disputing that you can :bored: And that's the biggest pile of **** I've ever heard. If you get into debt it's your own fault? My dad has been ill for a hell of alot of his working career when I was young and my mum was the only one working and built up a tons of debt from looking after him and a baby with numerous other unforseen circumstances that hit the family. Your actually telling me that it's now her fault that she has 25,000 worth of debt and every month that her wage comes in she's already overdrawn? You need a shake.

Were your mum & dad both earning 44k+ each?

No, you really think she'd be in debt if she was getting an additional 44k wage sick pay!?

Well you can hardly apply your situation to the people who are losing child benefit then

I'm not saying about everyone in debt, its unavoidable for some people, but for people who are on high wages (bearing in mind the average wage is around £19k) if you manage to get yourself in debt then its your own fault

My parents are seperated, it's just my mum's wage that counts. My point isn't that MY particular family will suffer anyway, they won't I'm 18. It's the fact that you can't just say that everyone who earns over 44k will be fine with losing child benefit. That's not true.

I earnt a lot of respect for the Tories for this.

You don't choose to get Child benefit. You GET it. You don't claim it. Once you have a child the parent gets it, full stop. It's a general thing. Not a benefit like signing on you nana

What is wrong with means testing child benefit? It was introduced in 1977 to help families feed and clothe their children and should never have been available to high income families. However, over the years the system has been abused by scroungers and feckless young girls who carry on having children they cannot afford to bring up themselves. I had to bring up two sons on my own when I divorced and whilst the child benefit was extremely useful and it was spent on the CHILDREN, I didn't consider it a right or an entitlement, and would have supported any move to cut it back or even abolish it then, as well.

Well it is still going to be paid to families who earn under £44K so what is all the outrage about? The Tories need to go further and make it payable only for the first two children. There should also be some way of ensuring the money is actually spent on the CHILDREN and not seen as pocket money for mum and dad. Most families, even earning £44K or more, plan their families within their means, and people who wish to have large families should support their OWN children since it is their choice to have more than 2.
It annoys me that some parents who have never worked a day in their lives so as to contribute anything to society, can blithely carry on having children that other people are effectively supporting.

And why the hell are we giving child benefit payments to eastern european immigrant workers who send it back home to the tune of millions? Has this country completely taken leave of its senses? Why are we funding child benefit payments for children living in their home countries of Poland, Rumania etc? These payments should be STOPPED immediately, there is no justification for British workers funding the children of economic immigrants. That would slash the welfare burden quite considerably and free up more money for those in this country who have actually CONTRIBUTED throughout their working lives, like pensioners.

IF you listen to the reasons why,and the details you will see they are right!!!

Spot on Angus,people need to read the details and understand why this is a good thing.

If you're THAT principled, you can opt out, maybe that's what is meant. Unfortunately, a lot of people who don't really need it, take it anyway.

Just to correct you there, child benefit is only paid to those whose children are resident in the UK

But just to really hack you off, migrant workers from EEA countries can claim Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit, which adds up to a lot more money in their pocket than Child Benefit.

Unfortunately not a lot can be done about that as its one of the benefits of the EEA policies that workers can pick up tax allowances from their own country and the country they work in.

Its good to know should you decide to work in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, or Slovenia you will be able to sign up for the pittances oops allowances their workers get.

I agree that whatever the threshold they decided on it would p*** off some people so that part of it is fine. If they decided on 44k thats fine its fair and reasonable.
But its the absurdity of the fact that two joint incomes can be earned up to £86999 and they get it but a household where a mother or father has made the decision to be a stay at home parent earning £44000 lose out. Its ridiculous. And £44000 is a great income in some areas of the country but in other expensive areas its not especially high if you have a mortgage and children.
And the higher earners are supporting the 'poor and vulnerable' - well that is not necessarily the case. I come into contact with lots of families in my job and I would say that the 'poor and vulnerable' on different benefits - their children have a lot more games consoles, TV's in all their bedrooms, latest up to the minute phones, sky TV and basically every damn gadget and new craze that comes onto the market - whereas so called 'well off 'families cannot afford afford any of this stuff. And they could do with the extra towards school uniforms, school trips, christmas, birthdays, university fees etc as much as anyone. And they pay enough god damn tax and national insurance - why shoudn't they

Economic migrants from Eastern Europe are receiving child benefit for their children who do NOT live in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majo...ng-abroad.html


This is from the Department of Works & Pensions website:

Benefits for children in EEA countries
UK Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit
If you are in the UK or another EEA country and

you are employed or self-employed in a job in which you must pay contributions under the UK scheme
or

you are getting one of one of the following UK benefits:
Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance
Guardian's Allowance
Incapacity Benefit
contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance
State Pension
Widows Benefit/Bereavement benefits
Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
you can usually get UK Child Benefit or Child Tax Credit for your children, even if they are living in another EEA member state.

There are some people in this country who are just plain greedy.

I don't work (yep a stay-at-home Mum) but my husband does work full-time and we receive the relevant benefits for two children. I also receive Disability Living Allowance and Carer's Allowance for my eldest child. Our income is STILL no where near the £44K limit and we could manage without child benefit. I won't bore you with the details but I make sure the child benefit is spent ON the child and not the rest of the family. I always have and always will. One of my sisters got child benefit she just put it in her purse and spent it on whatever.

Absouletly crazy that all parents received this money no matter how much they earn, yes even the Royal Family. Can't tell me they even notice this amount in their bank account.

Believe you me if you are unemployed or on a very very low wage child benefit can be a lifesaver (sometime literally).

Bang On Right
Shaun.

Yeah, I'm quite liking this Tory government, they know what cuts need to be made but they're starting with the top earners where there will be little disruption as opposed to last time they were in power when they started at the bottom

You still have to put a claim form in, you don't just set up a direct debit when you leave hospital. Most benefits don't require signing on you nana

Yes cutbacks do have to be made and a national debt does have to be repaid and in Camerons own words everyone will have to contribute accordingly. But this isn't everyone this is just the so called better off. Well some of them are but not all of them not by a long way. There are people who are absolutely vulnerable and they need these allowances to put food on the table and nobody can deny that - but there are others who 'cant afford' to buy their kids school uniforms but can afford £90 trainers because the child wants them, 'cant afford to pay for their child to go on school trips to broaden their minds but can afford DS consoles, is eligable for free school meals but manage to get McDonalds or Chinese takeaways 3 nights a week. There are those 'poor and vulnerable' who go out and get pi**ed every friday and/or Saturday, who smoke 20 fags a day.
While all the while the 'better off' are getting squeezed tighter and tighter by the government to pay more and more. Well if they carry on there will only be the few very rich and the rest will be all poor so there will be no one to squeeze and no pot to take from and then what the hell will happen

You're making one hell of a generalisation there. Its like saying all people who live on council estates are filthy chavs or alcoholics with no jobs or intentions of getting one when it couldn't be further from the truth in some areas

No I'm not making any generalisations more than anybody else who assumes an income of 44k is a high income full stop. It is in some cases but it also depends on whether you live in an expensive area and have a large morgage. As always the government opt out of any means test because its easier, quicker and cheaper to go for the easy target. And I'm not generalising about all 'poor and vulnerable' families - of course there are families who desperately need allowances and benefits and of course they should be supported but I also know through my contact with lots of families with varying different circumstances that there's a lot more so called poor and vulnerable who have a lot more material possessions than the so called well off. Why shouldn't I comment on that when it is assumed that 'well off' people shouldn't be in debt, that its all their own fault cos they earn a fortune dont they so why should they just not be so greedy and stop spending and live within their means. Well why does that not apply to people on benefits who's kids come into school and say 'can you look after my DS for me till hometime'. Your assuming I'm saying that everyone on benefits is not entitled or squanders money or are scamming the system or are smoking or drinking it away or whatever. I'M NOT - I'm saying it about the ones who do and they do!!!! It is complicated to means test yes but that doesn't mean to say it isn't the only or right fair way - It has to be seen to be fair otherwise it wont be

I generally agree with Tom here, I like the idea that Higher Earning familes really shouldn't get as much benefits as they really don't need it, My parents don't earn £44,000 a year yet they live comfortably. As long as the people who do need it get it then I'm fine with the cuts to people who can live without.

hmmm problem is we all have things we could live without - people on benefits included - not all but some. I watch this thing on BBC1 on Mondays called Saints and Sinners and they're are some really lovely people out there who havn't had a great deal of the cards and deserve any help they're given but unfortunately they're are also people who claim everything and anything even when they arn't entitled and they abuse the system. It has to be seen to be fair and unfortunately its not when I am witness to such bad examples constantly. And it is on balance because I am not denying the genuinly deserving cases

Considering the drastic cuts that the Conservatives are having to make, I can't see how people are kicking up a fuss over this.

They should count themselves lucky, they're in a lot better position than most and this will hit them far less hard than a lot of the people who will be affected by the forthcoming government cuts.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, more that you're making it sound like everyone is doing that. You're also missing the point that some poorer families have more material posessions to make themselves feel more well off. Its an ego boost if anything.

Anyone who voted to keep Labour in power for 13 miserable years, has no right to be bleating and whingeing about the cuts that are having to be made now. Labour did what they have always done, blithely borrowing with no thoughts as to how we are supposed to pay it all back. The government has no choice but to implement severe cuts in public spending and we're ALL going to feel the pain, but let's put the blame where it richly deserves to be, on the incompetent and feckless useless Labour Party, finally kicked out before they could inflict any further damage on our country.

Your totally right but all the criticism will go to the elected party now and before long the labours will get back in because to have been elected is a lose lose situation. It will be this is what the Conservative/Lib Dems have done - not this is what labour done and have always done whenever they have been elected - they always leave the country in a complete mess and I hope the blame is where it should be and that people have long memories. Its a clean up situation and all of it is down to the last lousy government

Yep, it has always been Labour's modus operandi - grind the country into the ground, get kicked out, have the incoming government clean up their mess causing said government to become massively unpopular, then blithely be re-elected to do it all over again by a moronic electorate who have the memory of a goldfish. Thus the cycle is perpetuated:rolleyes: