[Tom]

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

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Tom

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.

[Beastie]

Originally Posted by Iceman

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.

If you can't afford to have more than 2 kids then you shouldn't have them. Why the f uck do I have to work and pay for other people's sprogs?? Disgusting.

I do feel sorry for people who genuinely out of a job though and are desperately looking for another one. I have been in that position too! Once you get a job.. you feel ever so grateful!

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Tom

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

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.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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.

[Lucy.]

People who earn over 44k can still have debt.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Lucy.

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

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Lucy.

People who earn over 44k can still have debt.

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...

[Shaun]

Well, cutbacks have to be made...

[Lucy.]

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.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Lucy.

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

[Kerry]

Originally Posted by Tom

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

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

[Angus]

Originally Posted by ~Kerry~

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

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.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by KG.

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

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

Originally Posted by ~Kerry~

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

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

[Beastie]

Originally Posted by Lucy.

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.

I know people who earn a lot of money and are stupid with their money.. they have to get the latest this.. the latest "designer gear" this that and the other.. people having loans on bloody sofa's!! If you can't afford something.. you should not have it alltogether!!!!

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Lucy.

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.

If they earn over 44k pa I don't particularly want my tax going to pay for them to have an extra few quid in their pocket because they chose to have kids. I already pay into an education system for their children.

Child benefit was brought in after the war to help ease poverty and to boost birth rates. We don't need that incentive anymore. Child benefit should only go to those on a low wage.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Livia

If they earn over 44k pa I don't particularly want my tax going to pay for them to have an extra few quid in their pocket because they chose to have kids. I already pay into an education system for their children.

Child benefit was brought in after the war to help ease poverty and to boost birth rates. We don't need that incentive anymore. Child benefit should only go to those on a low wage.

Exactly - in a nutshell.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

If they earn over 44k pa I don't particularly want my tax going to pay for them to have an extra few quid in their pocket because they chose to have kids. I already pay into an education system for their children.

Child benefit was brought in after the war to help ease poverty and to boost birth rates. We don't need that incentive anymore. Child benefit should only go to those on a low wage.

I am not working yet as I am at Uni but I have to say I agree 100% with this comment, it says everything really.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Shaun

Well, cutbacks have to be made...

Bang On Right
Shaun.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Shaun

Well, cutbacks have to be made...

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

[Tom]

Originally Posted by rhino

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

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Tom

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

[Tom]

Originally Posted by rhino

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'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.

[Lucy.]

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

[Tom]

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?