Child Benefit cut

[oafc0000]

So you have a joint income of just under £90k but you claim that you are entitled to wrking famuilies tax credit but dont claim it and were suggesting the other day that Glasto tickets might be a bit too expensive for you. Can you understand why so many pople think you make it up as you go along?

Edited October 5, 2010 by oafc0000

[Ed209]

...I typed it slowly because I know you can not read very fast...

[bunique]

Take out pension and student loan and it's about £2,300 take home pay right? What's the avg mortgage payment - £700 (stab in the dark)? You can see how once you add in bills, council tax, travel expenses (esp in the South East), a family with a single income could miss the extra income CB brings.

Think the announcement has been bordering on farce and agree wholeheartedly with sifi's point earlier about policy being released to the media instead of through parliamentary channels - when will mps be given an

opportunity for debate?

And don't get me started on Gove...

[oafc0000]

Take out pension and student loan and it's about £2,300 take home pay right? What's the avg mortgage payment - £700 (stab in the dark)? You can see how once you add in bills, council tax, travel expenses (esp in the South East), a family with a single income could miss the extra income CB brings.

Think the announcement has been bordering on farce and agree wholeheartedly with sifi's point earlier about policy being released to the media instead of through parliamentary channels - when will mps be given an

opportunity for debate?

And don't get me started on Gove...

[lost]

I also think if your pension contribution takes you back under the higher rate tax band you get child benefit again

[llcoolphil]

You truly are a shit stirring dickhead...

[eFestivals]

Like I said, you only know your own world..

I know far more than my own world.

But I do know that those on £21k - the most common wage in the country, the median average - know their world too, and can only dream of having the vast array of privileges that a wage of £44k+ would give them.

I also know that there's not a person in the country who earns £44k who couldn't live on half of that - as most people do!!!

You say that you'd like the low paid to have a living wage - which would require all of those people on £44k to drop their wages by £10k or more. But then you say those people on £44k can't afford to drop even just £1k.

You're f**king loopy.

[eFestivals]

a family with a single income could miss the extra income CB brings.

no one is suggesting that they won't miss it.

Those with a brain know for certain that they can do without it. The fact that 50% of workers earn £21k or less proves that's the case.

[llcoolphil]

a family with a single income could miss the extra income CB brings.

[llcoolphil]

You simply have a problem with anyone who has more money than you... Thats why...

[eFestivals]

+1

While it's wrong the way they've announced it, surely you're more than smart enough to realise exactly why in a govt run by a PR man....?

They've announced this cut for the rich first, so that when they screw the poor by a hugely greater amount they can say "but we're suffering too, look, we've lost child benefit".

It's the first part of the biggest robbery of the poor by the rich that this country has ever seen.

[bunique]

What do you envision is their plan for the poor Neil?

[gratedenini]

What is being rich mean? To "the likes of us".

My interpretation of being rich (financially) is having a house with more bedrooms as you really need.

Having a car which cost over 10k. Not scouring over a restaurant menu to see how much things are. Buying any vegetables at M&S

Buying cocktails when out! Getting a main course each from the chinese takeaway.

Having a season ticket to a premier league football team.

Buying a whole salmon. Paying for a prostitute.

Having a newspaper delivered. Having the full sky package.

Whilst being slightly facetious, the above list contains some things I just would never entertain.

Richness is in the eye of the beholder of course and its all relative.

Yer cant blame anyone for earning good money..for getting on,digging in etc etc... but what pisses me off now is the salaries that are being paid for certain jobs.

These are the people who are becoming "rich".

I dont go in for these average wage, average house prices and that.

Means nowt to me.

Yer have 100 people on 10k a year. Then yer get 20 people on 250k a year. The average means f**k all.

All I know is that when I was on between 16-20k and my wife (ex) was on about 10k.... we were buckled!

But--we had no child care to consider.

Conversely, Our lass now employs about a dozen people with all that goes with it and makes nowhere near this 44k being talked about.

Childcare for 3 kids is a f**kin fortune and you only get so much help.

Its tough.

However, if she was making 70k for example... I`d class that as being "rich"...and thats why I used that figure earlier.

den

[eFestivals]

What do you envision is their plan for the poor Neil?

There's going to be a cut of at least £1k in what they get to directly put in their pockets each year (either from benefit cuts or from tax increases). Plus they'll lose far more via the cutting of services which to many of them are essential.

It'll pan out with those on £44k or more taking a much smaller proportional cut than the poorest. It's the tories in power, remember?

I'm just munched my lunch in front of the TV with that prick IDS going on about "benefit scroungers" - yet he's meant to be the tory with a heart, who knows the benefits system and who uses it. So he knows damned well that only a tiny proportion are "scroungers". He's clearly playing up the scroungers bit so that people will believe any protests about the cuts in benefits can be ignored because they're complaints from "scroungers".

[dakyras]

There was an article in the Independent (I think) at the beginning of September that said the ideal salary was £50-55k. Any more than that, and you start getting sucked in to the lifestyle that demands more money; a bigger house, a flashier car, etc...

But obviously any one who tries in vain to keep up with the Joneses is an arse.

[oafc0000]

A view point that is often forgotten is...

Myself personally have been paying into the system since I was 16... That is about 14 years of taxes... When I started a family I didn't expect much but I did expect a few things...

State funded Education..

State funded Healthcare...

Child Benefit...

There are other things I expect...

Police Service

Fire Service

Highways maintained

Public Transport

and so on...

I expected these regardless of income and its one of the deals I struck as a UK tax payer. I suppose it starts to hurt when people take away these universal benefits. Whats next ?

Healthcare ? Education ? lets be frank, I can probably just about afford to send the kid to a private school AND get private health care. But should I have to?

More points of views to consider... other than, you earn enough so pay up and sod off... I pay into this pot as well and I should expect a return from time to time...

I do pay a high gross amount of tax... Its not unreasonable to ask for things in return ?

Edited October 5, 2010 by oafc0000

[eFestivals]

Myself personally have been paying into the system since I was 16... I did expect a few things...

so there's your most basic error.

You are not paying into an 'oaf' fund, you are paying into a country fund - a fund you have no right to expect any return from.

There is of course a return - but no "right" to it.

The only 'right' is that those in most need should get first access to anything that comes from it.

[llcoolphil]

While it's wrong the way they've announced it, surely you're more than smart enough to realise exactly why in a govt run by a PR man....?

[oafc0000]

so there's your most basic error.

You are not paying into an 'oaf' fund, you are paying into a country fund - a fund you have no right to expect any return from.

There is of course a return - but no "right" to it.

The only 'right' is that those in most need should get first access to anything that comes from it.

[llcoolphil]

Healthcare ? Education ? lets be frank, I can probably just about afford to send the kid to a private school AND get private health care. But should I have to?

[eFestivals]

Government has been run by PR men for at least the last 15 years, as Alistair Campbell's massive influence and the emergence of the phrase 'on message' highlights.

It's one thing a non-PR man taking advice from a PR man and choosing whether to use it or not.

It's another thing entirely when the top man is that PR man.

It's very much not the first part. It's the part that comes after we decided not to let banks collapse and gave the rich people all their gambling losses back by effectively nationalising the debt. And not a single mainstream party has an alternative proposal. Labour plan to rob the poor just as much, just over a longer length of time.

Spot your own contradiction!!

What does taking back the same amount of money over a longer time equal? Half as much taken each year, so more to live on and 50% less hardship!

[eFestivals]

You denounce my rights but uphold your own made up right there surely...

Are you going to follow thru on that then, and be the first to state that those in need of urgent healthcare should die so that those earning £44k and more don't have to lose their child benefit?

I've simply stated it how it is. No right minded person would go with what you've alluded to.

[sifi]

I know I've already mentioned the fact that the Government haven't mentioned their de facto new legislation to the house - but I now wonder are the Lib Dems in the know with regards to this, I wonder?

edit : Two weeks ago, the LibDems passed an ammendment supporting the ringfencing of Child Benefit.

Edited October 5, 2010 by sifimaster

[oafc0000]

Are you going to follow thru on that then, and be the first to state that those in need of urgent healthcare should die so that those earning £44k and more don't have to lose their child benefit?

I've simply stated it how it is. No right minded person would go with what you've alluded to.

[llcoolphil]

It's one thing a non-PR man taking advice from a PR man and choosing whether to use it or not.

It's another thing entirely when the top man is that PR man.