Child Benefit cut

[gratedenini]

I appreciate your opinion but we did go down a different... A sort of compromise ...

Wife going down to four day week... I am dropping half a day... and the baby will be with grandmother for the other three and a half...

We figured the extra money would allow us to expose her to extra things... Her grandmother is more than happy to be helping out as well so it works for us.

Hopefully it will work for Annabelle...

[oafc0000]

Well, yes...and thats the dilema for you younger ones with families today.

There`s nowt wrong with it (except that there is )

Who wouldn`t want to be stopping at home with the bairn? Apart form the obvious career types that is.

Its about choices and neccesity and unfortunately, in todays society its usually the latter.

I remember when my 1st was born... and when she was about 2ish, i had a spell of being on the sausage... for quite a long time..and whilst it was tough... it did mean I bonded with her to a special degree. I can still feel it now.

Consequently, I took a job in the car trade (notorious hours of course) and had a spell where I would finsh work at 7/8/9pm... hardly seen the bloody kids.

Car trade really is a terrible job for blokes with young kids.

Bottom line is that every parent does what they think best for their kids eh.

Some think that by working and working to earn loads of brass..that that will give the children the best things and opportunities. Others think the best thing you could ever give a child is (quality) time.

I def pin my colours to the latter mast.

Yes...now you be looking after that likkle Annabelle..although I probably wont be around to see her Ascend The Throne... with your philosophies and training..I`m sure she will make good.

den

Edited October 6, 2010 by oafc0000

[Steve P]

It does all lead on to another interesting debate all this...

What is best for a child... mum at work or mum at home...

[RABun]

If they cut Child Benefit all together - and upped the threshold for tax credits slightly, and also upped income support to compensate the poorest in society for the loss of CB. Would that achieve the same thing. Plus also getting rid of a large amount of the admin function required to process CB claims?

[oafc0000]

If they cut Child Benefit all together - and upped the threshold for tax credits slightly, and also upped income support to compensate the poorest in society for the loss of CB. Would that achieve the same thing. Plus also getting rid of a large amount of the admin function required to process CB claims?

Edited October 7, 2010 by oafc0000

[eFestivals]

If they cut Child Benefit all together - and upped the threshold for tax credits slightly, and also upped income support to compensate the poorest in society for the loss of CB. Would that achieve the same thing. Plus also getting rid of a large amount of the admin function required to process CB claims?

There's some big issues with that, which would probably mean it wouldn't save the govt any money.

Currently, CB is about the easiest benefit to administrate, because it goes to everyone with a kid. It doesn't get much harder when they use tax bracket as the yes/no filter to that.

In theory, it makes great sense to wrap it into the tax credits system, because it adds no extra means testing. However, only a small proportion of people with kids are currently claiming tax credits, so putting CB into it would see those numbers rocket, and there'd be a huge amount of extra administration (with associated costs) from those huge amount of extra numbers.

On top of those changed CB claims into the Tax Credits system, those new people would also say "oh, I might as well claim the the tax credits I've not been bothered about before" - and so they'd be loads more extra claims and payments for the tax credits system.

And so the whole thing would cost much much more.

[oafc0000]

However, only a small proportion of people with kids are currently claiming tax credits

Edited October 7, 2010 by oafc0000

[eFestivals]

Are you sure about that ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-11466178

No idea on the uptake myself but this link would suggest it is being claimed quite heavily... £23.7 billion to be exact...

it's certainly the case that not all people eligable to claim them are claiming them - so moving all CB claimants into that system would result in there being more claims for tax credits.

But yeah, that's an extreme amount of taxpayers cash going to subsidise the shit wages that some companies pay so they can keep their profits up, which they then give to the bosses.

Mind you, Slimy Gideon could have saved 6 times the amount of the CB change he's announced by not letting Vodaphone off £6Bn of tax owed a couple of months ago (yep - he really did!!!).

Edited October 7, 2010 by eFestivals

[oafc0000]

it's certainly the case that not all people eligable to claim them are claiming them - so moving all CB claimants into that system would result in there being more claims for tax credits.

But yeah, that's an extreme amount of taxpayers cash going to subsidise the shit wages that some companies pay so they can keep their profits up, which they then give to the bosses.

[oafc0000]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=514832&in_page_id=2

What f**king hope is there when this is going on

Thanks for pointing it out Neil...

[mj2004]

I'm no Tory/policitians in general supporter, but perhaps cutting it from 'those who don't need it' means 'those who do need it' can still have at the full level, instead of cutting part of it from everyone.

Obviously the hard threshold is a silly idea; 2 parents each earning pa + £36,999 getting benefit while 1 parent earning pa + ££37,000 not getting benefit is ridiculous. (And anyone who is able to will be income shifting and giving dividends/interest to their partners as quick as they can)

The better solution on the face would be a sliding scale (as it would be to encourage people to get off benefits & go to work, but thats another story.) Howevever, would the cost of implementing this be too much to justify?

[lost]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=514832&in_page_id=2

What f**king hope is there when this is going on

Thanks for pointing it out Neil...

[feral chile]

Its the most simplest and straightforward of questions as far as I`m concerned.

No doubt in my mind whatsoever.

It is a far better scenario if a child has its Mother (or Father) at homeduring the 1st five years.

I really do feel so strongly about this and its a shame imo that the way things are now... usually both parents have to go out to work in order to keep to the standards they feel necessary.

My Mam never worked and although we didnt have much money... I do recall my childhood with so much fondness.

Coming home from school, fire on,smell of food,a cuddle etc etc.

Y`know..all that adds up. Its difficult to have that now...and as a result..society has changed. Into a less caring society...cos its the norm now.

With my 1st kids.. we both made a conscious,deliberate decision that Mam wouldn`t go back to work till the kids were at school. I`m rackin me brains trying to remember how it was financially... and as it doesn`t seem to hold a bad memory for me-- I think it was tough,but we got through it. Those kids are now 26 and 24..suppose it is different now although we`ve been fortunate with this latest tribe in that we`ve been able to spend whatever time we want with them.

We deliberately have sent King Lar and Hendrix to nurseries though... to enable more interaction with other mites.

I`d see mothers/fathers drop the bairns at 7am and come back for em at 6pm... probably get the kids home... quick bite to eat,bath maybe...then bed.

Horrendous imo... but totally understandable.

Flippin heck... its not as if this is going to manufacture the kids into murderers or mass rapists or owt of course... but I really do feel that it somehow is taking away a big element of The Family as I like to think of it.

aaaaaargh.... soap box collapse!!!

den

[eFestivals]

I don't think the take up is as small as you think given the numbers...

I don't think I said it was 'small', did I?

I'm simply saying not everyone that could be claiming is claiming, and that by merging CB into tax credits, more people would end up claiming tax credits, and that would more than wipe out the £1Bn saved by the restriction on who can get CB.

[eFestivals]

that is dodgy as f**k but dont see how its anything to do with Osborne, its a labour apointed civil servant ruling on a tax case from last year.

you need to get a few months back issues of Private Eye for the details of all the links between slimy Gideon/Dave Moron, the tax officials, and the vodaphone bosses.

I can't remember the details now, but it's certainly not just the case of an independent official making a ruling that vodaphone can be let off.

[oafc0000]

I don't think I said it was 'small', did I?

[oafc0000]

you need to get a few months back issues of Private Eye for the details of all the links between slimy Gideon/Dave Moron, the tax officials, and the vodaphone bosses.

I can't remember the details now, but it's certainly not just the case of an independent official making a ruling that vodaphone can be let off.