Child Benefit cut

[oafc0000]

Quite frankly it doesn't matter what any politician says when he is trying to get elected - only to show that politicians are lying bastards.

[RABun]

Quite frankly it doesn't matter what any politician says when he is trying to get elected - only to show that politicians are lying bastards.

£26,000 plus the second partner's earnings, as the plans stand, surely? Otherwise they wouldn't need full-time childcare.

[Ed209]

Torys to set a maximum limit on the amount of benefits someone can receive... At the national average salary...

[RABun]

This is a dangerous policy

So a single mother family, where the mum is unable to work is going to have a maximum benefit income of £22K a year, irrespective of where she lives or how many children she has to raise!? what if she has 3, 4 or 5 children?!

Hmmm ... I don't envy her

[gratedenini]

A very general statement... It is my opinion that if both partners work,have kids and get only average pay... life is liveable .. No problem.

Might not mean 2 cars, a foreign holiday and lots of white/brown goods etc... but its liveable.. and are playing your part in soceity.

Part of the problem (get me record player out) is our expectations.

I mean, tbh---i`m on the bones of me arse---but I still got a TV and stereo and my guitars and an expensive camera etc.

Well, years ago-- you just wouldnt have them, so now even though yer on the sausage... you sort of expect to have some of these things.

About 12 yrs ago, (ex wife) we bought a typical semi by taking out quite a large mortgage,for our ages. Both of us working, 2 kids. Average bills but no chucky on apart from the mortgage.... and y`know what... life (financially) was hunky dory.

We both had a car, went on holidays, I could buy a CD when I wanted on,went to gigs, bought nice food on weekends,drink etc etc.

But...it was always a case of juggling monies and the dreaded wait till pay day syndrome.

We were far better off than loads of people we knew, but still not near as well off as others.

And thats it. The more money you get--the more you spend, the more you expect and so those who have fallen foul of the credit crunch etc really find it hard to get back to basics.

Reletivity... (as my violin comes from its case)... I have no bread or milk till wednesday.

Others might not be able to buy that new dress.

Others might be living on the streets

Others might have health problems

an on and on it goes eh.

den

[feral chile]

I think its like the CB... In general fine... but what if you are severally disabled... Does this cover everything you need ?

[oafc0000]

The stuff I read today said with the exception of the disabled. It also said benfits would be cut to the average weekly income of £500 a week after tax. Both my husband and I are lucky enough to be working, but we don't bring home that and we manage, so unless there are loads of kids involved, most families should be able to cope as far as I can see.

It depends how it's implemented and how they calculate housing benefit etc.

[fraser_k]

If it's the case then that Child Benefit is means tested and the people who pay the highest tax won't get it, it should also mean that the poorest families should get more money to support there children?

[oafc0000]

If it's the case then that Child Benefit is means tested and the people who pay the highest tax won't get it, it should also mean that the poorest families should get more money to support there children?

[fraser_k]

The cut is designed to save money... So no...

[Gre]

no i meant a couple earning 44k between them - therefore if they are spending 18k a year on childcare 44k minus 18k = 26k

[oafc0000]

Its a big attack on stay at home mums really... Bit of a shock from the Torys who have traditionally supported the "traditional" family..

[oafc0000]

is wondering if the Torys will introduce S660 to stop people income sharing...

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I like the idea of a Universal allowance as it makes all feel the same to some extent.

This is a stupid and ill thought out change. If I was in the position if I was offered a pay increase/promotion I would now negotiate a rise to be below the 40% threshold (44K). If you are going to have any form of means testing then it has to be fair and transparent.

[Steve P]

If they earn 44k between them they'll still get child benefit.

Also, I'm not trying to say people shouldn't work etc etc, but if they're only earning 44k between them before tax, and spending 18k on childcare, they'd be better off financially (in the short term) by one partner not working. If they both want to carry one working until the children are school age, they are really going to have to watch their spending.

[Gre]

If they earn 44k between them they'll still get child benefit.

That's only part of the story though. If one partner stops working for 4-5 years then it becomes much more difficult for them to get similar employment when they go back (depending on the job they had before of course). My better half has already found this having only been off for 18 months - lots of questions regarding whether she's kept up with regulation changes etc.

[lost]

This is a stupid and ill thought out change. If I was in the position if I was offered a pay increase/promotion I would now negotiate a rise to be below the 40% threshold (44K). If you are going to have any form of means testing then it has to be fair and transparent.

[eFestivals]

As far as cuts go, this is probably a well made cut. It keeps an almost-universality to child benefit, while not adding in the huge costs of means testing as a way of deciding who gets it and who doesn't.

But of course, it's impact is unfair to people in particular circumstance - tho I wonder how many people are actually in those particular circumstances. Probably not a lot.

But anyway .... it's clearly a political plan, announcing 'cuts for the rich' first. Off the back of this cut announcement, you can be damned sure that the announcements to come in a few weeks of wider cuts are going to be savage, particularly for the poorest.

To most people I say "you voted for them, so it's too late complaining now".

[gratedenini]

I wonder how many people who voted for the Tories are now regretting it.

There is no doubt whatsoever, this deficit needs to come down...and I personally haven`t got enough knowledge to know how that is going to happen.

But, I do know... the threshold of this cut is too low.

I dont see an income of 40-50k as massively rich.

If the threshold was say, 70k I dont think there would be so much feeling about it.

afaic, if your income is 70k --you are "rich" and that is way enough brass for anyone to live very comfortably.

Lord knows whats coming in a few weeks, if this announcement was a sweetner of some sort!

den

[Snufflebutt]

??? So are you saying someone earning £250 000 should get CB? The whole system was set up to help the less well off. We, as a soceity should help out those who are without and try to lessen the gap between those who have, and those who dont.

Whilst 1bn in the swing of things may not sound a lot... if things can (and should) be trimmed across the board..then it all mounts up.

We can all see with our own eyes the way monies are wasted and its these areas that should be addressed.

[eFestivals]

I dont see an income of 40-50k as massively rich.

it's twice the average wage.

[oafc0000]

it's twice the average wage.

Edited October 5, 2010 by oafc0000

[RABun]

it's twice the average wage.

Edited October 5, 2010 by RABun

[Pogues Mcgogues]

I hate to keep sounding london centric but, this argument doesnt stand up - its like saying the average house price in the UK is 150k so therefore almost everyone should be able to afford to buy (i know its not 150k). It depends massively where in the UK you live as to how far 40k goes.

Edited October 5, 2010 by TheJobbyJabber

[jump]

Yeah def. In Glasgow 40k will mean you're pretty well off because it is pretty cheap to live in Glasgow. In London it will be a lot less an ammount compared to what you can get.

Edited October 5, 2010 by jump