very good point stephen why not bring it in at the next budget or in april why wait ? it not making any sence if other cuts will to be implemented straight away
Upvote
0
very good point stephen why not bring it in at the next budget or in april why wait ? it not making any sence if other cuts will to be implemented straight away
Upvote
0
always makes me wonder when I read things like this - how can you judge someone so soon? is it because of the way they speak or because of what they wives look like or what because there has been not time yet for many results to filter through from their actions:|
Upvote
0
Maybe because there are underlying themes that never go away. The real reason that child benefit cut is implemented in this particular way is to cut the monstrosity of government-which waves a red flag at anyone looking that WFTC life expectancy is pretty short also.
Under labour, we had a social safety net that went mad. In their eagerness to protect those at the bottom of the heap they created a structure that disincentivised many, discouraged employment, and penalised those that took risks. And a nanny government that regulated everything to extremes with the aim of protecting the few at the expense of the many.
The tories - their natural position, should anyone ever forget it, is to protect their own at the expense of the others.
Either way, I think DC has met his Waterloo, enough journos have sought statements from him that this implementation of child benefit cut will not be reversed or changed - so, I'd imagine that it will be bit snug in that corner with George at the moment.
So, bets on - next tory party leader - is this all part of the William Hagues great revenge plan???
Upvote
0
Are you sure you will be happy with a 130 quid a week.in a society that now thinks people need helt to bring up there kids if they only earn £800 a week.:|
Anyhow you have the wrong end of the stick as by the time you retire you will have more than paid for any old age benefits you get and the kids will be busy squandering your hard earned on various financial scams if history serves me right.
Earl
Who mentioned money? I'm talking about doctors, nurses, firemen, police etc. I know you worship at the temple of Mammon but there's more to it in my book.
d
Upvote
0
I don't understand why we don't just do things my way on this one.
> Recently Unemployed - claim benefit
> Unemployed for up to 3 months - claim benefit but show you've been looking
> Unemployed for 3 - 6 months - claim benefit, show you've been looking, but be placed in work by the Government or Local Authority
Unemployed for 6 months or more - benefit, but work for that benefit in placement by Government
> Household income between 15k-40k - claim reasonable tax breaks, child benefit up to 3 children
> Household income between 41k-60k - child benefit up to 3 children
> Household income between 61k> - get on with it. It's the real world.
Anyone not interested in my new policy will be rounded up and shot.
> Recently Unemployed - claim benefit
> Unemployed for up to 3 months - claim benefit but show you've been looking
> Unemployed for 3 - 6 months - claim benefit, show you've been looking, but be placed in work by the Government or Local Authority
Unemployed for 6 months or more - benefit, but work for that benefit in placement by Government
> Household income between 15k-40k - claim reasonable tax breaks, child benefit up to 3 children
> Household income between 41k-60k - child benefit up to 3 children
> Household income between 61k> - get on with it. It's the real world.
Anyone not interested in my new policy will be rounded up and shot.
Upvote
0
Therein lies the problem. How do you define, and be able to check the existence or not of a "household". That's exactly how the benefit cheats operate.
And to clarify an earlier post the Winter Fuel Allowance is not means tested. I repeat my grateful thanks to taxpayers for an unneeded gift each year. It's due soon, what shall I spend it on?
Upvote
0
You incentivise them to tell the truth. "If you tell the truth, we'll pay you these reasonable benefits for doing nothing"
"If you tell us a lie, and you're caught, you'll be shipped up to the North far reaches of Scotland where we've prepared Guantanamo-style camps to keep you. You'll be fed bread and water with a few own-grown vegetables twice a day, and if you don't like it, fill out the form honestly".
Rather than: "If you lie, we'll spend money advertising that we're cracking down on benefit cheats, then do nothing about it to the thousands of criminals out there. Even if we catch you, we'll probably not do anything as when it eventually comes to a court case we'll be incompetent, fill out the wrong form, and the case will be dismissed by the judge"
Upvote
0
D
Drpepper
Only problem is the tax we pay today isn't set aside for our old age it pays today's pensions etc. Our current old age pension/benefit pot is zero, so we haven't actually paid anything towards our government pensions etc.
Doesn't the future look bright
Upvote
0
I think the chancellor should fight his corner better.
Apparently the monthly net pay for someone earning £44k a year is £2,689. That sounds like a reasonable amount of money to me. I'm sure it would to a lot of people.
A dual income family = 2 x travel to work costs out of taxed income. If their household income is more than £26k or so they don't get help with childcare costs.
If that dual income family had three children, their child benefit would be £186.80 every four weeks. Surely the travel to work costs would be more than that?
Apparently the monthly net pay for someone earning £44k a year is £2,689. That sounds like a reasonable amount of money to me. I'm sure it would to a lot of people.
A dual income family = 2 x travel to work costs out of taxed income. If their household income is more than £26k or so they don't get help with childcare costs.
If that dual income family had three children, their child benefit would be £186.80 every four weeks. Surely the travel to work costs would be more than that?
Upvote
0
D
Dawg
Is a translation available?All be pay as you go when you retire.Top up cards from Tesco.
Earl
Or is it a crossword clue, (which might explain many postings.....)
Upvote
0
Blimey classic pot and kettle there Dawgy.
Earl
Leave him alone.He's worried about the pier!
Upvote
0
V
VeraJ
I agree, and more besides - winter fuel allowance, free tv licence to wealthy pensioners etc etc. The more that is taken away from the better off, the less they will have to hit the low paid workers.
And what about benefits capped at the average wage - £26,000 per annum? So people go out to work whilst others sit at home and breed and get the same in benefits. Crazy.
And what about benefits capped at the average wage - £26,000 per annum? So people go out to work whilst others sit at home and breed and get the same in benefits. Crazy.
Upvote
0
And, the less incentive for any of us here to carry on in our relentless task of slugging our guts out in order to build a business that at somepoint will probably make a profit (Argh!! Dirty word!!), employ folk at a decent wage in long term permanent jobs, and pay taxes.
And, much better that all the decent quality managers are taxed to hell and back, so that they leave and go and work overseas, and leave UK companies to be run by the bunch of monkeys that work for peanuts. As obviously, we have no respect for the years of work, training, education and hard graft that they've put in to get to that "wealthy" postition.
And Much better that anyone just about getting their head far enough above the water to start being able to contribute, lead and manage and actually add some value to our currently pitiful economy has their head held back under the water to allow society to "protect" the low paid workers.
Protect them from what? From peope that are actually able to get this country out of recession and into growth -because it sure as hell ain't going to be the politicians that do that.
Get real.
Upvote
0
V
VeraJ
Sandiep, If you had much of a job you wouldn't have time to write all that rubbish. Instead you would be creating all this wealth you seem to think you are capable of. Keep slugging away or not. Bet it makes little difference to HMRC whether you slug or not.
And, the less incentive for any of us here to carry on in our relentless task of slugging our guts out in order to build a business that at somepoint will probably make a profit (Argh!! Dirty word!!), employ folk at a decent wage in long term permanent jobs, and pay taxes.
And, much better that all the decent quality managers are taxed to hell and back, so that they leave and go and work overseas, and leave UK companies to be run by the bunch of monkeys that work for peanuts. As obviously, we have no respect for the years of work, training, education and hard graft that they've put in to get to that "wealthy" postition.
And Much better that anyone just about getting their head far enough above the water to start being able to contribute, lead and manage and actually add some value to our currently pitiful economy has their head held back under the water to allow society to "protect" the low paid workers.
Protect them from what? From peope that are actually able to get this country out of recession and into growth -because it sure as hell ain't going to be the politicians that do that.
Get real.
Upvote
0
Sandiep, If you had much of a job you wouldn't have time to write all that rubbish. Instead you would be creating all this wealth you seem to think you are capable of. Keep slugging away or not. Bet it makes little difference to HMRC whether you slug or not.
You know, you're right.
Much better that I throw all aspirations for myself and my family into the bin, settle for a minimum pay job, led by the monkeys that the politicians and folk like you seem to think are capable of ensuring that there will at least be a minimum pay job that will be able to ensure that I have a decent life.
In fact, as half of the UK's families are going to be worse off that those on benefits, I think I might just throw the whole lot in, sit on the sofa and watch Jeremy Kyle all day.
What ever happened to the concept that hard work brought its own rewards? Now, it just seems to make you a target.
So, for anyone currently deciding where to locate their next business - I would suggest that you go for the parts of the country with the highest unemployment rates - at that way at least you'll have some customers with cash.
Upvote
0
M
MG86
The argument of household vs single income: I think they just worked out which would be more profitable for the government & went with it. I really believe it was that simple.
Sandiep's point is a good (and quite funny!) one. I just can't stand the way this country is run, no matter who is in charge, the scroungers have become the majority & will continue to be, so now when you keep feeding them benefits you're gaining votes. The only good thing that came out of the election was all of the working class Sun readers voting for Cameron because their comic book said so, only to realise it's them who'd be hit the hardest & the writers & Directors of the drivel gaining the most in the long run.
The most comedic piece of Darling's announcement was where he said ''how can it be fair that somebody earning £20k a year pays the child benefit of someone earning £45k?'' I'd love to ask him ''how can it be fair for someone who earns £44k a year working their nuts off to pay for the child benefit of a 17 year old mum with no intention of working or ever paying into the system, who probably only had a kid in the first place to get themselves a house and some financial stability. This country is so backwards it makes me sick. Rant over. I think.
Sandiep's point is a good (and quite funny!) one. I just can't stand the way this country is run, no matter who is in charge, the scroungers have become the majority & will continue to be, so now when you keep feeding them benefits you're gaining votes. The only good thing that came out of the election was all of the working class Sun readers voting for Cameron because their comic book said so, only to realise it's them who'd be hit the hardest & the writers & Directors of the drivel gaining the most in the long run.
The most comedic piece of Darling's announcement was where he said ''how can it be fair that somebody earning £20k a year pays the child benefit of someone earning £45k?'' I'd love to ask him ''how can it be fair for someone who earns £44k a year working their nuts off to pay for the child benefit of a 17 year old mum with no intention of working or ever paying into the system, who probably only had a kid in the first place to get themselves a house and some financial stability. This country is so backwards it makes me sick. Rant over. I think.
Upvote
0
D
Dawg
Now we know that it's Mother's Ruin. From an economic paper:
"They estimate that for a couple not on other benefits with one child, a £1 rise in child benefit is associated with a 49p rise in spending on alcohol, a 40p rise in spending on adults clothing, but only a 1.4p rise in spending on childrens clothes.
For lone parents, 70p of a £1 rise in child benefit is spent on womens clothing and 21p on alcohol."
From here via here.
"They estimate that for a couple not on other benefits with one child, a £1 rise in child benefit is associated with a 49p rise in spending on alcohol, a 40p rise in spending on adults clothing, but only a 1.4p rise in spending on childrens clothes.
For lone parents, 70p of a £1 rise in child benefit is spent on womens clothing and 21p on alcohol."
From here via here.
Upvote
0
I've never understood why the government has to tax me in order to give me the money back in a benefit that I get whether I earn £100/week or £100million/week. Simply nuts, and the kind of money-go-round that socialists love, where we're all taxed to the hilt and then turned into supplicants for the largesse of the state. I'd much rather keep my money in the first place, and preserve taxation for helping the *really* needy.
We'll be hit hard by this, having 2 children of the relevant age. But we can afford it, and I expect that most 40% taxpayers can afford it, protestations about single mums on £50k/year notwithstanding (and how many of those are there, exactly?)
The "unfairness" of the change is no more unfair than the current tax system that everyone seems to accept without a great gnashing of teeth, that allows a couple earning £40k each to earn about £80k/year before they progress to higher rate tax, whereas a single person can only earn c. £40k before being taxed at 40%. The entire tax and benefits system is full of similar unfairnesses and it seems odd to focus hysterically on this particular aspect of the withdrawal of universal CB, which will affect only a small minority of higher earners.
We'll be hit hard by this, having 2 children of the relevant age. But we can afford it, and I expect that most 40% taxpayers can afford it, protestations about single mums on £50k/year notwithstanding (and how many of those are there, exactly?)
The "unfairness" of the change is no more unfair than the current tax system that everyone seems to accept without a great gnashing of teeth, that allows a couple earning £40k each to earn about £80k/year before they progress to higher rate tax, whereas a single person can only earn c. £40k before being taxed at 40%. The entire tax and benefits system is full of similar unfairnesses and it seems odd to focus hysterically on this particular aspect of the withdrawal of universal CB, which will affect only a small minority of higher earners.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
V
VeraJ
Yes Chris, add it to the other free-to-air tv and i think we can cope without the BBC. Hard times mean hard choices. Maybe get out more as well.
Upvote
0
What a bunch of idiots..it's pathetic!
Here's what I would do:
Any house hold which earns a combined income, this included their children, of£40k a year, should be entitled to NOTHING.
Child Tax credit should be upped for one child and then no benefits should be given after the first. I'm sorry, but if you can't afford to have a baby to start with, you shouldn't be having them. one 'Mistake' is enough. Women who have babies to up their income of child tax credits will soon learn that there is no easy way out. It's the kids who I feel sorry for. These children are brought into the world with no hope or future, just to fuel their greedy, selfish, moronic parents.
People who earn less than the threshold of 40k should be entitled to a percentage of child tax allowance, depending on their wages, including overtime and bonuses.
Ideally, I would turn the cash that they receive into tokens, but I think allot of businesses would be effected. Take aways and off license shops, for one.
Of course, I might be generalising here - but I've lived in and around council estates all my life and there's certainly allot of evidence which created that stereotype! As I type this, there's a "family" 6 or 7 doors down - all they ever do is sit outside and drink beer and smoke cigarets. They have 4 children and I would bet every penny I could find, that that's come from their 'child tax credits'.
Another thing I would do: I would stop private home owners being able to rent their property to the DSS, so hard working people who have mortgages, like myself, don't have to put up with scum like my neighbours.
Here's what I would do:
Any house hold which earns a combined income, this included their children, of£40k a year, should be entitled to NOTHING.
Child Tax credit should be upped for one child and then no benefits should be given after the first. I'm sorry, but if you can't afford to have a baby to start with, you shouldn't be having them. one 'Mistake' is enough. Women who have babies to up their income of child tax credits will soon learn that there is no easy way out. It's the kids who I feel sorry for. These children are brought into the world with no hope or future, just to fuel their greedy, selfish, moronic parents.
People who earn less than the threshold of 40k should be entitled to a percentage of child tax allowance, depending on their wages, including overtime and bonuses.
Ideally, I would turn the cash that they receive into tokens, but I think allot of businesses would be effected. Take aways and off license shops, for one.
Of course, I might be generalising here - but I've lived in and around council estates all my life and there's certainly allot of evidence which created that stereotype! As I type this, there's a "family" 6 or 7 doors down - all they ever do is sit outside and drink beer and smoke cigarets. They have 4 children and I would bet every penny I could find, that that's come from their 'child tax credits'.
Another thing I would do: I would stop private home owners being able to rent their property to the DSS, so hard working people who have mortgages, like myself, don't have to put up with scum like my neighbours.
Upvote
0
M
MG86
I guess the simple answer is to ask the general working public to decide what the huge pot of money we contribute to every day of our lives gets spent on. There are enough mature replies on here to prove that it could work. Most of the high earners are happy to contribute to people who are genuinely less well off. We desperately need to stop paying people for not working, it's common sense, and the 'big community' debate is still ongoing, why not start the ball rolling by making these so called 'job-seekers' earn their benefits by picking up a bit of rubbish or soing some voluntary work. the problem we're starting to have now is that the biggest expense is the scroungers, and all of these cuts are just making it harder & harder to distinguish between the job-seekers & the 'job-seekers' as the unemployed list keeps growing. My friend lost his £28k a year job 3 weeks ago, he's on redundancy & has just got himself 2 jobs, one in Tesco & one as a waitor for a local hotel, he's working 50 hours a week & is only just better off than he would be if he was on benefits. I think anyone who has been a 'job-seeker' for more than 18 months needs to be properly investigated. Not just prove they've been to interviews, the JSA is a good wage for turning up to 1 interview a fortnight & purposely not getting the job, I know this happens too as I've seen the evidence.
Upvote
0
G
Gord
Couldn't agree more.
I think the faux fury is whipped up because there is still a significant percentage of the population that think in tribal terms when it comes to politics. So you get the 'auto-attack' against all policy announcements.
The sooner these numbskull's become floating voters (or as I prefer to call them, free thinkers ), the sooner politicians will deliver cross-party common sense solutions rather than half-a*sed block vote appeasements designed to minimise political damage.
Incidentally, refreshing to see Phill 'Joanna Lumley ate by b*llox' Woolas supporting the idea's on prison reform.
Upvote
0
so no child benefit if one partner earns more than 44k
But child benefit if both parents earn 40k each.
Strewth give me strength.
I agree. It should look at combined income.
But... it's a step in the right direction. And I very much like the idea of a £26k cap on benefits.
Steve
Upvote
0
You talk allot of sense. The fact is, some people just don't want to work and some people will work at all costs. We also have a 'I'm not doing that job' culture now. The same people who never bothered with a decent education or skilled training, still think they have a right to pick and chose what job they do. I employ a lady who works from 7:30am to 4pm - 6 days a week. She has a mortgage and a husband who is waiting for 3 operations on his hip and elbows. His incapacity benefits were stopped 3 months ago and she's struggling. Because they are married and live together and have no children under the age of 16, she's not entitled to anything. It's wrong. The Government should at least be able to help her with her mortgage - or with her utility bills until he's fit enough to work again. But nope.
IMO, there's two big stumbling blocks for stopping benefits altogether. Crime rates and Human rights laws. Human rights laws, because we can't force people to do any job (or anything for that matter) and potential increase in crime rate for obvious reasons.
Upvote
0
Do you have to apply for child benefit, or is it automatically given to anyone who qualifies for it?
I find it hard to imagine many couples earning around £80,000 (£40,000 each) who have the nerve to directly apply for £20 per week (or whatever it is) per child. How much of these benefit payouts are really going to families in those circumstances?
But hey, maybe I've just forgot to take off my rose-tinted spectacles this afternoon.
I find it hard to imagine many couples earning around £80,000 (£40,000 each) who have the nerve to directly apply for £20 per week (or whatever it is) per child. How much of these benefit payouts are really going to families in those circumstances?
But hey, maybe I've just forgot to take off my rose-tinted spectacles this afternoon.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #78
I think people tend to forget that the government takes 50% of every pound earnt in the UK.
So they have a rather large pot to play the benevolent santa clause with.
Always seems to me that the refusal to means test benefits of any kind has never been a very fair system.
I very much doubt that the managing director of a large corporation works any harder than a check out girl in Tesco.
Governments have for a long time had the opportunity to make a fairer playing field ,but seem to resist doing so based on some non provable theory that people would loose incentative to work or create wealth.
Utter rubbish IMHO if one looks at the history of the worlds great achievers pay packets.?
Earl
So they have a rather large pot to play the benevolent santa clause with.
Always seems to me that the refusal to means test benefits of any kind has never been a very fair system.
I very much doubt that the managing director of a large corporation works any harder than a check out girl in Tesco.
Governments have for a long time had the opportunity to make a fairer playing field ,but seem to resist doing so based on some non provable theory that people would loose incentative to work or create wealth.
Utter rubbish IMHO if one looks at the history of the worlds great achievers pay packets.?
Earl
Last edited:
Upvote
0
V
VeraJ
Hi Earl
Not large enough though given that spending is a lot more than income.
Means test all benefits. Pensions included. Soon get spending down.
Not large enough though given that spending is a lot more than income.
Means test all benefits. Pensions included. Soon get spending down.
Upvote
0
They get almost 50% on simply PAYE, E'ee's NIC and E'ers NIC alone.
They get a lot more once you've also taken in account VAT, Fuel Duty, Alcohol and Fag duty, Stamp duty, road tax, insurance premium tax, 1001 fixed penalty notices for anything that they can think of to slap them on, airline passenger tax, council tax, broadband tax, thats another new one. I'm sure that there are some that i've missed.....(probably about a hundred or so
)
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
The Most Dangerous Moment in Business Is When Everything Is Going WellThey Saw It Coming. They Did Nothing. The Lessons Every Business Owner...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI and Your Business: Useful Tool, Not a Magic WandThere is no shortage of noise around artificial intelligence right now...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Companies House WebFiling security incident: what happened, what to check, and what to do nextCompanies House has confirmed that its WebFiling service suffered a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Spring Budget 2026: A Quiet Update for UK BusinessesChancellor Rachel Reeves delivered the UK’s Spring Statement on 3 March...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Practical Ways to Make Your Small Business More Resilient (Especially When the Unexpected Happens)Running a business means juggling plenty of things you can plan for and...- UKBF Editor
- Updated:
