SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Local Businesses | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (5): « First [1] 2 3 4 5 Next > Last »
Family Allowance Cuts
Author Message
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #1
08-10-2010 10:30 AM

So what do we all think of the proposed cuts from 2013

I think its a bit stupid that in one household where there is one wage earner and they earn 44k before deductions per annum will lose the benefit, yet another household where there are 2 wage earners, both earning 43k before deductions per annum will not

Also we all pay our taxes, so we all should benefit from welfare handouts

What will be next, stopping the higher tax payers from using ambulances ?

And Im not a high tax payer, my yearly income before deductions is in the region of 35k and my wife stays at home to look after our 2 children, so we will lose the Child tax credit in April 2012

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #2
08-10-2010 11:04 AM

I do agree solution not ideal as single wage earners penalised, but apparently as people are taxed as individuals this is the only cheap way to do it.
Perhaps we should go back to couples taxed as couples.

I do 100% agree however in a benefit ceiling being put on serial baby machines on benefit.

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #3
08-10-2010 11:08 AM

I do 100% agree however in a benefit ceiling being put on serial baby machines on benefit.

Totally agree with you on above Brian

Find all posts by this user Reply
nevermodern


Posts: 653
Joined: Feb 2007
Post: #4
08-10-2010 11:41 AM

Exactly HOW long ago was it called 'Family Allowance'?

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,793
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #5
08-10-2010 01:07 PM

Yes , lets stop people having more children. Who needs a new generation of workers to provide our pension provision after all. We can all clearly work into our 80's so whats the problem.

The issue the Tories admitted last night on newsnight was that means testing would cost more than it would save and this has been the view for a number of years which is why no one has ever fiddled with it. Hence they have decided to impose a simple solution which however is so simple it actually isn't logically applied. There should be no problem using the tax system for such an arrangement to obtain economies of scale.

The issue about the cap of 26k is worrying to the extent that it will put children into poverty. That should be the question, and the basis of assessment, not this useless debating of how much these overbreeders are screwing out of us all.

As it stands, all the cuts this government has been coming out with has been aimed at cutting the money and services meant for children. We should not forget that this benefit is meant for expenditure on them, not adults. I don't know anyone who doesn't do that to buy things for them and for our family its a useful contribution to the 1400 childcare payment which we pay every month.

As children are too young to vote they are clearly an easy target. I don't disagree with the higher taxpayer argument at all but it should be fairly and equitably applied. Lets hit the higher tax payer for other things. The current proposals make no sense whatsoever.

Find all posts by this user Reply
rshdunlop


Posts: 1,111
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #6
08-10-2010 01:23 PM

We will lose child benefit - my husband is a higher-rate tax payer, and I earn barely enough to be taxed, so can probably be classed as a stay-at-home parent. I know there are people who earn more than us who will still get the benefit when we lose out, and it is anomalous, but there are anomalies in any system, and this is the cheapest and easiest way to implement this change.

We are in desperate times, and I would much rather I lost my child benefit that other families sink into poverty. And I'm not going to cry about other people keeping the benefit. It's not relevant to me. What matters is: can I afford to lose it? If the answer is yes (which it is) I'm happy to give it up.

I find the other cuts, the capping of benefits regardless of the number of children, somewhat alarming. Of course we can't keep subsiding people who have large families assuming the state will support them. But the majority of people on benefits are there because some catastrophe has befallen them, and most single parents don't start out that way.

Find all posts by this user Reply
DerbyHillTop


Posts: 120
Joined: Aug 2008
Post: #7
08-10-2010 02:37 PM

The thing that strikes me is how we all look at ourselves first. The plans so far are cutting at all levels of society, and it seems to me we bikker about who will be hit harder and almost enjoy the pain that we are about to receive.

No one is talking about living standards and disposable income. I wonder how will the living standards of GO and DC change. What will they have to forgo for the changes they are proposing?

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #8
08-10-2010 02:43 PM

I doubt very much that they will even notice anything with the cuts that are being made across the board, its not as if they send their children to state schools, its not likely they will use the NHS, and I doubt very much if they will ever be affected by gang culture where they live, the same can be said for most MPS, they are all the same, do as we say, not as we do


Just wait until these cuts start hitting home, then people will realise that we will very slowly be heading back in the early/mid 1980s when Thatcher and her merry men did just about the same sort of thing

Find all posts by this user Reply
rshdunlop


Posts: 1,111
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #9
08-10-2010 02:46 PM

I'm very much afraid, ForestHillier, that this lot are even worse than Thatcher. Hard to believe, I know. Cuts have to be made, but do they have to be done with such glee, when they are directed at the poorest in society?

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #10
08-10-2010 02:53 PM

rshdunlop - time will tell, yet I think you may well be right

hope im wrong, yet I can see lots of civil unrest and lots more anti social behaviour and gang culture as how will the police cope with a 50% cut to services, the good people who are teachers and work in the NHS will all become fed up and will more than likely jack the job in, think we are in for a very rough time indeed, its ok for DC & GO as they are multi millionaires with offshore bank accounts who were all educated at Eton, what about the kids from the council estates who cannot find work due to these cutbacks, what will they do ?

I bet the re-building for schools that are private are still going ahead unlike the state ones

Find all posts by this user Reply
willy


Posts: 6
Joined: Oct 2010
Post: #11
08-10-2010 03:35 PM

When are people in this country going to take resonsibility for themselves? You chose to have children so why should you expect the state to subsidise that choice? I don't expect you to pay my rent or my petrol or my food bill.

The benefit system should be for people who need it not for people earning good money who fancy having a few kids.

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #12
08-10-2010 03:42 PM

Willy - yes I can see where your coming from yet as we - well most all pay taxes, then why should we not see some of it back from the so-called welfare state, I think maybe they should put a block on paying for 2 children

I pay tax, yet I dont complain that some of that goes towards your well being with NHS, police etc - do I

Find all posts by this user Reply
willy


Posts: 6
Joined: Oct 2010
Post: #13
08-10-2010 03:47 PM

That's true but that's because the Police/NHS is used by everyone and my taxes also pay for them.

My point is that if you are earning 35k (well above the national average) why should you receive child benefit? It should never have been available to 'middle income' families in the first place.

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #14
08-10-2010 03:53 PM

Maybe not yet when I first started to get FA, my salary was nowhere near that mark, plus my wife stays at home, so that is our total family income

I can see the point where people who choose not to have children appear to be hard done by when they receive nil yet people who have children, get money, why should they, they why should we refuse, why should we not complain when it stops,

Yes police.nhs is used by everyone - however I went to the doctors last week and that was my first visit in 11 years, so ive hardly bleed it dry

Find all posts by this user Reply
rshdunlop


Posts: 1,111
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #15
08-10-2010 04:01 PM

Everybody does not get out exactly what they put in to the state - otherwise taxation would be pointless. Some get more, some get less. From each according to their means, to each according to their needs - if you need to use the state less than other people, maybe it means life and luck have been kinder to you than to (some) others, not that you are owed a refund. Childless people will benefit from the taxes of the children of others, when it comes to their pension and social care when they are older.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #16
08-10-2010 04:14 PM

RSHdunlop.

Yes we do not expect to get the same out of the state as we put in but some start with the premise that they will put zero in and as much as possible out.

Do you really think the children of serial mothers on benefit will all get jobs and look after the elderly. I am not convinced but nice if you were right.

Maybe people who have never worked should be allowed benefit for two children , any more NO benefit.
I think society very generous paying for two children.

Find all posts by this user Reply
rshdunlop


Posts: 1,111
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #17
08-10-2010 04:28 PM

I do agree that people who are on benefits are often irresponsible in having more children, when many people who work restrict the size of their family because of money worries.

But I don't want to see people penalised because they had good jobs, had their kids then fell on hard times, only to be told at that point that the state will not support them.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #18
08-10-2010 04:36 PM

I agree that there is a big difference with those who have loads of children whilst not working anfd no intention ever to do so and people who had children whilst working then become unemployed and have no more.

Should not be hard to identify which is which and no benefit for the first and helpm for the second.

Find all posts by this user Reply
DerbyHillTop


Posts: 120
Joined: Aug 2008
Post: #19
08-10-2010 04:45 PM

Willy,
to fund two children at a cheap nursery(if you can find one) you need about 30k pa gross and 40k for some in FH area. If this leaves you with 5k after the childcare costs are paid. Pay tax at 22% plus 10% NI and it leaves you with 3400 net. The child benefit on two children 1700. Now, would you complain if you were loosing 30% of your income? That is the calculation someone on 45 k and 2 small kids may be loking at.

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,209
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #20
08-10-2010 04:54 PM

Once again I think that the only logical conclusion to this line of thinking is not to penalise children of these tax-dodging-benefit-scroungers, but to give them to nice middle-class families where they can be properly brought up.

Similarly we would probably require chemical castration for all unemployed people and anybody on benefits, including all mentally and physically disabled people.

And if you have more than two children then all extra children should not get child benefit, or state education, or health care, 'I think society very generous paying for two children'.

The solutions proposed by you and by me (in jest) are worse than the problem you are trying to fix.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (5): « First [1] 2 3 4 5 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields