Child Allowance Cuts

[CusworthRovers]

As a big labour supporter, I actually agree with this Coalition initiative. It sounds more like a Labour policy to me that they haven't seen fit to do or approach or have the b*llocks to say, for fear of losing the Southern vote.

All the chuffs earning wads of cash, what the chuff do they need to claim for. In reality it will be fine wines money for the parents and not for the kids, who clearly do not need it.

Give it to the ones that do!

[Filo]

CusworthRovers wrote:

As a big labour supporter, I actually agree with this Coalition initiative. It sounds more like a Labour policy to me that they haven't seen fit to do or approach or have the b*llocks to say, for fear of losing the Southern vote.

All the chuffs earning wads of cash, what the chuff do they need to claim for. In reality it will be fine wines money for the parents and not for the kids, who clearly do not need it.

Give it to the ones that do!

It`s a load of b*llocks mate, how do they justify a 1 wage family earning £44k a year having it taken away, but still allow a 2 wage family with a joint income of £86k to keep it?

[hoolahoop]

CusworthRovers wrote:

As a big labour supporter, I actually agree with this Coalition initiative. It sounds more like a Labour policy to me that they haven't seen fit to do or approach or have the b*llocks to say, for fear of losing the Southern vote.

All the chuffs earning wads of cash, what the chuff do they need to claim for. In reality it will be fine wines money for the parents and not for the kids, who clearly do not need it.

Give it to the ones that do!

I'm with you , they just need to iron out the dual income disparity and it's sorted...........as for me I'm definitely NOT a Labour supporter. Sounds like a Lib/Dem idea to me though not Tory.  

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's the classic softening-up tactic. They want to wage war on the Welfare State. They reckon that the best way to do it is to wage a minor little war on the higher paid first off. That way, when the full carnage is unleashed on the poorer folk, they can say, \"Aye, but Jemima and Rupert in Sevenoaks are taking a hit an all.\"

BTW Hoola. The Lib Dems were much too left-wing to agree to this (at least BEFORE the Election they were). They categorically were against means-testing of child benefit (which is what this is) for precisely the reasons I state.

But then, Clegg is an irrelevance now. Did you see his interview when this policy was announced, followed by another one that is 180 degrees opposite to Liberal policy (the idea of having Married Couple tax allowances)? He looked like the bairn that had been told by the big lads that he could sit on the back seat of the school bus, but when it set off, they gave him and wedgie, made him suck their cocks in turn then chucked him out of the Emergency Exit.

[jucyberry]

I have to say I find it extremely hard to summon up much sympathy for the 44k a year brigade.

although I have to say they are blatantly targeting the single parent, be it make or female. after all you have the same bills to pay if you are a one adult household as you would in a two adult one, and I know people live to their means.. HOWEVER...

when Stacie left school my income dropped nearly £600 a MONTH. and as I am only on minimum wage to begin with it went from just over 12 k to just over 7k in one hit...we survived..just. I wouldn't call it living, but it's a darned sight better than many people in many parts of the world isn't it?

So pardon me if I find it hard to weep for someone who is on nearly five times as much as me.

To be flip and generalising, perhaps it will get some of the bloody 4x4's off the school runs!

[turnbull for england]

define 'save it for the ones that do' is it a one parent high earner who gets bills for every aspect of the childs life?, or a never to work type with four kids claiming for anything that moves,   sweeping generalisations yes I know but i know where my thoughts are

Think more importantly they are getting turkeys to vote for christmas again,  applying it to 44k+ but not combined salaries that are well in excess of this so everyone complains ( rightly) that this is unfair , the next step is simple, take it from more people to even it out, as you the great public asked for.

And here the erosion begins

[Wellington Vaults]

The bleating has already started at work.  Oh yes, it was fine to vote Tory when the \"cuts\" were going to affect someone else, but when they land on your own door-step, cue rants of indignation.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Completely agree with it, these people do not need the money at all.  Although I don't agree with keeping it for those whose combined earnings are more than the 44k, it should be total family earning.  The problem is though they want more people to stay married and you could potentially see a situation where people divorce to gain the money which could potentially have a wider impact on other benefits, tax etc, potentially issues such as that could lead to the savings being completely eradicated.

[jucyberry]

Here is a novel, but unworkable and potentially highly unpopular thought..

Perhaps people on a higher income should have to give written proof of where child benefit goes. because I have always been rather sickend by the comfortably off announcing that 'we just put it in a bank account because we dont really need it.'

THEY are the ones that perhaps should lose it.
 I thought family allowance was paid to the mother (or parent with care) for the children at a time when the care give stayed at home to raise the children, and for some it was their only income.

Now far too many use it for holidays and perks, not exactly what welfare was devised for is it?

I think Turnbull is right tho, this is a carefully constructed ploy to help what ever comes next either slip under the radar .

[Savvy]

CusworthRovers wrote:

As a big labour supporter, I actually agree with this Coalition initiative. It sounds more like a Labour policy to me that they haven't seen fit to do or approach or have the b*llocks to say, for fear of losing the Southern vote.

All the chuffs earning wads of cash, what the chuff do they need to claim for. In reality it will be fine wines money for the parents and not for the kids, who clearly do not need it.

Give it to the ones that do!

Something has to change because as it stands our benefit system is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme.

Bernie Madoff got 150 years for running a system like ours!

[copps123]

Its ok,people who have studied and worked god damn hard to earn over 44k have it all they dont they??? I mean, 40% tax is a real bonus.  

For me, take it off the scroungers who pop 7 kids out and sit at home on their fat backsides watching jezza in a morning on their 50inch plasma's paid for with their \"benefits\"

Just a thought.

[jucyberry]

This is what I mean, if it is just going into the bank and being saved, then it isn't needed.

That wasn't what any benefit was devised for.

 Means test it, it would be fairer in the long run than penalising parents in a single adult household.

This is more an assult on the single parent than it is against the wealthy.
Tory middle Englanders seem to loathe single parents with an almost unhealthy passion..

And here's a thought, most of the so called feckless multi kid families we see in the papers generally have two parents.
Most single parents are out there working to put food on the table.

[Perks]

Don't bring me into this arguement Juicyberry!!!

[MrFrost]

jucyberry wrote:

This is what I mean, if it is just going into the bank and being saved, then it isn't needed.

That wasn't what any benefit was devised for.

 Means test it, it would be fairer in the long run than penalising parents in a single adult household.

This is more an assult on the single parent than it is against the wealthy.
Tory middle Englanders seem to loathe single parents with an almost unhealthy passion..

And here's a thought, most of the so called feckless multi kid families we see in the papers generally have two parents.
Most single parents are out there working to put food on the table.

I agree with that.
I remember a teacher I had at school. Blamed the fact that I was shit at maths on the fact I came from a one parent family.

Personally I welcome the cuts. It doesn't effect me, however I know a couple of people it does effect, and they also have no problem with it. I'm tending to agree about the joint income argument though.

[Filo]

MrFrost wrote:

jucyberry wrote:

This is what I mean, if it is just going into the bank and being saved, then it isn't needed.

That wasn't what any benefit was devised for.

 Means test it, it would be fairer in the long run than penalising parents in a single adult household.

This is more an assult on the single parent than it is against the wealthy.
Tory middle Englanders seem to loathe single parents with an almost unhealthy passion..

And here's a thought, most of the so called feckless multi kid families we see in the papers generally have two parents.
Most single parents are out there working to put food on the table.

I agree with that.
I remember a teacher I had at school. Blamed the fact that I was shit at maths on the fact I came from a one parent family.

Personally I welcome the cuts. It doesn't effect me, however I know a couple of people it does effect, and they also have no problem with it. I'm tending to agree about the joint income argument though.

Maggie, Cameron and Clegg will be proud of you  

[MrFrost]

Filo wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

jucyberry wrote:

This is what I mean, if it is just going into the bank and being saved, then it isn't needed.

That wasn't what any benefit was devised for.

 Means test it, it would be fairer in the long run than penalising parents in a single adult household.

This is more an assult on the single parent than it is against the wealthy.
Tory middle Englanders seem to loathe single parents with an almost unhealthy passion..

And here's a thought, most of the so called feckless multi kid families we see in the papers generally have two parents.
Most single parents are out there working to put food on the table.

I agree with that.
I remember a teacher I had at school. Blamed the fact that I was shit at maths on the fact I came from a one parent family.

Personally I welcome the cuts. It doesn't effect me, however I know a couple of people it does effect, and they also have no problem with it. I'm tending to agree about the joint income argument though.

Maggie, Cameron and Clegg will be proud of you  

I presume you stopped reading after the highlighted part.
Anyone earning over 44k per year, should be able to live a comfortable life, without depending on welfare handouts.

[Filo]

The Child allowance is a right of every family in Britain regardless of income, a better approach would be for the allowance for families over the £44k threshold to be invested in a pension fund for each child, thus giving that child a start for their pension and in the long term reduce the costs of state pensions, or is this too simple?

[Filo]

MrFrost wrote:

Filo wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

jucyberry wrote:

This is what I mean, if it is just going into the bank and being saved, then it isn't needed.

That wasn't what any benefit was devised for.

 Means test it, it would be fairer in the long run than penalising parents in a single adult household.

This is more an assult on the single parent than it is against the wealthy.
Tory middle Englanders seem to loathe single parents with an almost unhealthy passion..

And here's a thought, most of the so called feckless multi kid families we see in the papers generally have two parents.
Most single parents are out there working to put food on the table.

I agree with that.
I remember a teacher I had at school. Blamed the fact that I was shit at maths on the fact I came from a one parent family.

Personally I welcome the cuts. It doesn't effect me, however I know a couple of people it does effect, and they also have no problem with it. I'm tending to agree about the joint income argument though.

Maggie, Cameron and Clegg will be proud of you  

I presume you stopped reading after the highlighted part.
Anyone earning over 44k per year, should be able to live a comfortable life, without depending on welfare handouts.

The highlighted part is a statement that I would expect from you, the majority of your posts are of the \"f**k you I`m alright\" variety

[MrFrost]

Filo wrote:

The Child allowance is a right of every family in Britain regardless of income, a better approach would be for the allowance for families over the £44k threshold to be invested in a pension fund for each child, thus giving that child a start for their pension and in the long term reduce the costs of state pensions, or is this too simple?

It isn't going to be a right as from 2013 though is it?

[MrFrost]

Filo wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

Filo wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

jucyberry wrote:

This is what I mean, if it is just going into the bank and being saved, then it isn't needed.

That wasn't what any benefit was devised for.

 Means test it, it would be fairer in the long run than penalising parents in a single adult household.

This is more an assult on the single parent than it is against the wealthy.
Tory middle Englanders seem to loathe single parents with an almost unhealthy passion..

And here's a thought, most of the so called feckless multi kid families we see in the papers generally have two parents.
Most single parents are out there working to put food on the table.

I agree with that.
I remember a teacher I had at school. Blamed the fact that I was shit at maths on the fact I came from a one parent family.

Personally I welcome the cuts. It doesn't effect me, however I know a couple of people it does effect, and they also have no problem with it. I'm tending to agree about the joint income argument though.

Maggie, Cameron and Clegg will be proud of you  

I presume you stopped reading after the highlighted part.
Anyone earning over 44k per year, should be able to live a comfortable life, without depending on welfare handouts.

The highlighted part is a statement that I would expect from you, the majority of your posts are of the \"fcuk you I`m alright\" variety

Yes, although if you capable of reading past that, you would see that the post wasn't made in that vain.

[Filo]

MrFrost wrote:

Yes, although if you capable of reading past that, you would see that the post wasn't made in that vain.

So why make the point that it does n`t affect you at all?

you could have just said you agreed with it without stating that it does n`t affect you, I suspect that if it did affect you, you would be mightily pissed off and have a different point of view!

[MrFrost]

Filo wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

Yes, although if you capable of reading past that, you would see that the post wasn't made in that vain.

So why make the point that it does n`t affect you at all?

you could have just said you agreed with it without stating that it does n`t affect you, I suspect that if it did affect you, you would be mightily pissed off and have a different point of view!

If I was lucky enough to earn 44k a year, I very much doubt I would need an extra £20 a week. As a business owner, we are having to deal with a VAT increase as from January. I've not moaned about that anywhere, have I?

[copps123]

Mmm.  No-one picked up on the sarcasm in my post.

I'm not happy. I will loose £134 a month, which DOES go on my children and not into my \"4x4\" as juicy puts it, or on my wine!

[Barmby Rover]

MrFrost wrote:

Filo wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

Yes, although if you capable of reading past that, you would see that the post wasn't made in that vain.

So why make the point that it does n`t affect you at all?

you could have just said you agreed with it without stating that it does n`t affect you, I suspect that if it did affect you, you would be mightily pissed off and have a different point of view!

If I was lucky enough to earn 44k a year, I very much doubt I would need an extra £20 a week. As a business owner, we are having to deal with a VAT increase as from January. I've not moaned about that anywhere, have I?

I doubt that you moaned about the DROP in VAT given by Gordon Brown to keep small businesses afloat through the worst point of the crisis, giving them a bit more money in the pocket, then putting it BACK to where it was before. the ONLY governments to have ever raised the percentage of VAT have been Tory ones, and will do so again, because it affects the poor much more as a tax than the rich, and that is who their constituancy is, the greedy and the rich.

[jucyberry]

Now, I'm sorry if I hit a nerve with the 4x4 comment, but living in a rural area as I do, you do tend to get heartily sick of upity mares and their monster trucks.. ( not that I am inferring you are upity)

I actually didn't give a thought to the wine consumption of the better off. I don't drink so booze doesn't figure very high on my thought list.

And If you feel I have been unduly flippant then once again I'm sorry.

However, I also stand by my comments about those who openly say they bank this money because they don't need it.

I also know that it is all realative, the £600  a month I lost from my finances when my daughter left education and the  £134 that will be lost from your income IF and when the cuts come both pinch a tight wallet don't they?

[copps123]

To be fair, its a hard call. It just makes me sick having to pay 40% tax when there are so many people who do not contribute a penny, never have any intention of doing so and just sponge off the state.

For the record, I dont drive a 4x4.  With my driving skills, i'd never be able to park it anyway.  I struggle to get in between the lines in a mother and baby space at the supermarket  

[jucyberry]

The thing is, as with everything in this world, the ones who lose out will be the ones who need. The winners are as always, the ones with everything..

The proverbial chip for you is the huge ammount of tax you pay , for me it is the penalisation of the single parent. Asthe child of a father who died at 48 leaving my mum alone ( and don't get me started on the way widowed mothers are treated in this country) I do tend to get extremely defensive of the single parent family.

I honestly cannot get my head around a government that has willfully declaired a war of sorts against a one parent family in this way.

(although on a similar theme I was taking to one of my friends about it. she is a widow, her husband died before retirement age, the advice she was given when she challenged her cut in benefit was, well, when you go shopping  now only buy one chop instead of two..)

.Ah the compassion of the benefit system.

[copps123]

My main gripe is people who just dont wanna work and expect everyone else to pay for them.
I was brought up in stainy on a council estate by my single parent mother, so I know the other toss of the coin well.

[jucyberry]

I wonder if the career claimant will ever really be stopped. The sad thing is, everyone knows at least one, yet so many good, dcent people are trapped in the moir of the benefit system with little hope of escape. There are times when I have to admit I could weep with frustration at the way some have the knack of milking the system. I know for myself, even if i wanted to go down that route then I wouldn't be one of the plasma tv brigade, with irony I'd say I wouldn't be that lucky. Lol.

[BobG]

Y'know, I've been reading the papers, and watching the TV, for 30 odd years and more now. And every single week of that 30 odd years there's been another article about the 'spongers', the 'workshy' and the 'lazy' all scrounging off the system. And bizarrely, guess what? Every single political party at every single election in those 30 odd years has 'vowed to clamp down on the scroungers'.

Not been doing much of a job then have they?

Alternatively, all this angst and anguish could be a ploy. A political statement to appeal to the greed of those who do the work. We all like some other bugger to blame for all our troubles don't we?

Makes me sick this debate does. What the f**k is the purpose of society then? If there's more than a teeny, teeny fraction of one percent of folk who are still scrounging, then sack the f**king politicians. They've been bellyaching about it for long enough. And if it is really a teeny, teeny fraction of one percent, then shut the f**k up and concentrate on something important for a change.

And yes. Removing the child care allowance will have a major and direct impact on Alexander. And I do earn more than 44 grand. And yes, I am a single parent. Of a 9 year old.

BobG