Stop child benefit to middle/high income parents?

stainluss

I understand that children can't work and get an allowance because of this, but i dont think all families (esp. the rich) should get it.

I believe this because children in middle/high income families will get plenty off their parents, but those whose parents can only earn enough to take care of themselves should get some money for their children.

Now would be a good time to impose this as the economy is leaking money and we need to think of simple ways to cut govt. expenditure.

Thoughts?

Flamed Diving

But what is the purpose of CB? Is it to alleviate those in poverty or is it some kind of compensation for the cost of reproduction?

If we did implement your plan, should be apply the same to disability benefit? Should a rich/middle income disabled person have this benefit removed?

jhegarty

What do you define as middle/high income ?

omahaid

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Should a rich/middle income disabled person have this benefit removed?

Ummm, why should a rich disabled person get disability allowance? They're rich after all

Trampas

Then you have why should anyone be given child benefit.

If you can't afford children then people shouldn't have them.

Free education and medical care should be enough

Flamed Diving

omahaid wrote: »

Ummm, why should a rich disabled person get disability allowance? They're rich after all

This is an argument. This is why we need to ask why we are giving out benefits in the first place. What is their purpose?





(I am certain this post will be misinterpreted)

stainluss

jhegarty wrote: »

What do you define as middle/high income ?

That would have to be decided, the threshold would be high enough so that no children would experience any lower level of living standard or anything.

It would just be taken away from those who dont see it as help in raising their children, but just another source of income.

They created these kids, so if they have enough money for them, why do they deserve to take a bonus?

Flamed Diving

stainluss wrote: »

That would have to be decided, the threshold would be high enough so that no children would experience any lower level of living standard or anything.

It would just be taken away from those who dont see it as help in raising their children, but just another source of income.

They created these kids, so if they have enough money for them, why do they deserve to take a bonus?

You could measure is based on the Console Index.

One Console = Lower Band
Two Consoles = Middle Band
Three Consoles = Higher Band

muboop1

stainluss wrote: »

I believe this because children in middle/high income families will get plenty off their parents.

Not necessarily true at all...

jhegarty

stainluss wrote: »

That would have to be decided, the threshold would be high enough so that no children would experience any lower level of living standard or anything.

But your definition of middle/high earner has a massive bearing on peoples option.

maryjane007

jhegarty wrote: »

What do you define as middle/high income ?

this is exactly the problem who are middle income earners? you can be sure that a lot of those who are defined as this are struggling just as much as anyone else.

we would probably be considered middle income but find it really really difficult to make ends meet if ours was taken away we would be in big trouble. i dont mean in luxuries such as cinema trips etc i mean getting the kids uniforms and keeping boys in shoes (huge expense :eek:) and necessities that it was intended for.

stainluss

Trampas wrote: »

Then you have why should anyone be given child benefit.

If you can't afford children then people shouldn't have them.

Free education and medical care should be enough

So the low-income child should suffer and starve for the parents mistakes?

The way i proposed would mean that child benefit would only be given to those who couldnt afford to feed and clothe their kids.

The parents may not deserve it, but the kids deserve a certain standard of living.

But the people who don't need it, shouldnt get it.
If the can feed the kids on their income, then they shouldnt be given extra.

Im not saying its fair to everyone, but it ensures that all kids get a good standard of living and we save mental amounts of cash

stainluss

muboop1 wrote: »

Not necessarily true at all...

If they're earning enough, then they wont starve their children and build a constervatory instead, would they?
Im talking about the necessities (the whole purpose of child benefit)

stainluss

maryjane007 wrote: »

this is exactly the problem who are middle income earners? you can be sure that a lot of those who are defined as this are struggling just as much as anyone else.

we would probably be considered middle income but find it really really difficult to make ends meet if ours was taken away we would be in big trouble. i dont mean in luxuries such as cinema trips etc i mean getting the kids uniforms and keeping boys in shoes (huge expense :eek:) and necessities that it was intended for.

Its a theory. All of those costs would be factored in and a cutoff would be made.

If the cutoff was set correctly, if a family would need it, then they will get it.

Even if the cutoff positioned, say 60% of families entitled, then 40% of families multiplied by the amount given out anually is going to give the government more money!

Better than imposing more taxes or pay cuts IMO...

ntlbell

maryjane007 wrote: »

we would probably be considered middle income but find it really really difficult to make ends meet if ours was taken away we would be in big trouble. i dont mean in luxuries such as cinema trips etc i mean getting the kids uniforms and keeping boys in shoes (huge expense :eek:) and necessities that it was intended for.

A middle income familiy who strive to live within their means shouldn't ever be in financial difficulty while in employment.

If they over extend themselves with large mortgages, car finance, loans, credit cards and re-mortgaging then they will find it tougher than others.

if you buy uniforms in the right place they're pretty cheap (as long as you're not buying for a football team) something that can be expsensive is the yearly book change which could be looked into.

a good pair of doc shoes/boots should last years. if you're forking out for exspensive nike apron runners that last a few weeks, then really the goverment shouldn't be subsidiising people's poor descision making.

(i'm not suggesting you do any of the above, i mean in general)

RealityCheck

stainluss wrote: »

I understand that children can't work and get an allowance because of this, but i dont think all families (esp. the rich) should get it.

I believe this because children in middle/high income families will get plenty off their parents, but those whose parents can only earn enough to take care of themselves should get some money for their children.

Now would be a good time to impose this as the economy is leaking money and we need to think of simple ways to cut govt. expenditure.

Thoughts?

The problem is your idea is'nt the simplest option. Cutting it across the board is and is the option the government will most likely go through with. A reduction in the region of 10% is on the cards. Now whether thats fair or not is another question.

nesf

ntlbell wrote: »

a good pair of doc shoes/boots should last years. if you're forking out for exspensive nike apron runners that last a few weeks, then really the goverment shouldn't be subsidiising people's poor descision making.

For older kids in their teens sure, for younger kids their foot size changes rapidly. You're doing well to get a year out of a pair of shoes a lot of the time. But yes, buying sturdy shoes makes a huge difference.

louisa200

ntlbell wrote: »

A middle income familiy who strive to live within their means shouldn't ever be in financial difficulty while in employment.

If they over extend themselves with large mortgages, car finance, loans, credit cards and re-mortgaging then they will find it tougher than others.

if you buy uniforms in the right place they're pretty cheap (as long as you're not buying for a football team) something that can be expsensive is the yearly book change which could be looked into.

a good pair of doc shoes/boots should last years. if you're forking out for exspensive nike apron runners that last a few weeks, then really the goverment shouldn't be subsidiising people's poor descision making.

(i'm not suggesting you do any of the above, i mean in general)

a pair of shoes lasting a child years?? erm.. do you have children.. do your children have crippled feet if you do??? School uniforms not expensive... lol.....

Cut middle income families child benifit and they wont be able to work cause they wont be able to afford childcare... only people who can afford children should have them lol... brings me back a bit to the nazis.. what are we going to do, force terminations (I doubt it in this country) to any woman whos income is under a certain amount... send her to the laundries, starve her childlen? make her children wear docs for years on end till their feet curl... this board does amuse me sometimes, people spout about things they have absoloutely no knowledge of... try walking in someone elses docs for a while lol..
Child benefit helps not only the poorest but often the middle income families who both work and who are struggling to put food in their fridge... ST. Vincent de paul has had a huge increase of families seeking help where both parents are earning but just cant afford food and oil ontop of childcare etc.
I think unless you are in receipt of child benefit there is no point commenting because it is all pie in the sky.. yes, maybe tax it for those who are wealthy, but this small amount of money per month should be for every child, and ensure every child is helped by our society....

stainluss

RealityCheck wrote: »

The problem is your idea is'nt the simplest option. Cutting it across the board is and is the option the government will most likely go through with. A reduction in the region of 10% is on the cards. Now whether thats fair or not is another question.

True, the numbers getting it would change every year as familys incomes change, but this would save even more than a 10% overall cut,in exchange for some paperwork. They will always take the easier option:mad:

Mr. Presentable

So, what you are saying is: If I sit at home and breed I should get child benefit, but if I work my ass off and earn a decent living I should be penalised?

Is that what you are saying?

RealityCheck

nipplenuts wrote: »

So, what you are saying is: If I sit at home and breed I should get child benefit, but if I work my ass off and earn a decent living I should be penalised?

Is that what you are saying?

Do you see the contradiction. Sure im sure raising loads of children is a bundle of laughs and will turn you a decent profit after 18 years:rolleyes:.

ntlbell

louisa200 wrote: »

a pair of shoes lasting a child years?? erm.. do you have children.. do your children have crippled feet if you do??? School uniforms not expensive... lol.....

Erm, I have one yes.

As nes said in younger years there will be rapid growth, but unless the child is some sort of freak a good pair of shoes should last at least a school year. no crippled feet, just a bit of common sense when purchasing them.

How much do you pay for a uniform and where do you buy them? I'm sure plenty of people could point you in the right direction.

louisa200 wrote: »

Cut middle income families child benifit and they wont be able to work cause they wont be able to afford childcare... only people who can afford children should have them lol... brings me back a bit to the nazis.. what are we going to do, force terminations (I doubt it in this country) to any woman whos income is under a certain amount... send her to the laundries, starve her childlen? make her children wear docs for years on end till their feet curl... this board does amuse me sometimes, people spout about things they have absoloutely no knowledge of... try walking in someone elses docs for a while lol..

lol, it's a hilarious subject.

You think people shouldn't take their financial circumstances into consideration when thinking about planning a familiy? LOL? is that too much to ask a responsible adult? lol?

louisa200 wrote: »

Child benefit helps not only the poorest but often the middle income families who both work and who are struggling to put food in their fridge... ST. Vincent de paul has had a huge increase of families seeking help where both parents are earning but just cant afford food and oil ontop of childcare etc.

As I said, if middle income families had put more thought into their spending habbits, they _should't_ be struggling, BUT if they didn't they will. Once again, it's about evaluating your own circumstances, it will lead to less dependancy on the state to pay for thier school uniforms and what not.

louisa200 wrote: »

I think unless you are in receipt of child benefit there is no point commenting because it is all pie in the sky.. yes, maybe tax it for those who are wealthy, but this small amount of money per month should be for every child, and ensure every child is helped by our society....

I'm in receipt of it and would much prefer it went to a much better cause, I decided to have children, I'll support them, I don't expect anyone else to.

Mr. Presentable

RealityCheck wrote: »

Do you see the contradiction. Sure im sure raising loads of children is a bundle of laughs and will turn you a decent profit after 18 years:rolleyes:.

No, you may have to point it out to me. One of these people contributes to the state coffers, the other sucks at it's teat.

ntlbell

nipplenuts wrote: »

No, you may have to point it out to me. One of these people contributes to the state coffers, the other sucks at it's teat.

You're right, same as the crowd on the social.

lets just pull everything from everyone, survival of the fittest!!:rolleyes:

Mr. Presentable

ntlbell wrote: »

You're right, same as the crowd on the social.

lets just pull everything from everyone, survival of the fittest!!

You understand! Great

RealityCheck

nipplenuts wrote: »

No, you may have to point it out to me. One of these people contributes to the state coffers, the other sucks at it's teat.

Were you ever a child at any stage ?

stainluss

louisa200 wrote: »

a pair of shoes lasting a child years?? erm.. do you have children.. do your children have crippled feet if you do??? School uniforms not expensive... lol.....

Cut middle income families child benifit and they wont be able to work cause they wont be able to afford childcare... only people who can afford children should have them lol... brings me back a bit to the nazis.. what are we going to do, force terminations (I doubt it in this country) to any woman whos income is under a certain amount... send her to the laundries, starve her childlen? make her children wear docs for years on end till their feet curl... this board does amuse me sometimes, people spout about things they have absoloutely no knowledge of... try walking in someone elses docs for a while lol..
Child benefit helps not only the poorest but often the middle income families who both work and who are struggling to put food in their fridge... ST. Vincent de paul has had a huge increase of families seeking help where both parents are earning but just cant afford food and oil ontop of childcare etc.
I think unless you are in receipt of child benefit there is no point commenting because it is all pie in the sky.. yes, maybe tax it for those who are wealthy, but this small amount of money per month should be for every child, and ensure every child is helped by our society....

These people dont sound like the middle income people im referring to.

Im talking about people who are not struggling in any way shape or form.

Maybe you didnt read other posts, i was talking about a cutoff point where the 'middle class' to which you refer would be certainly under(definitley not those getting helped by SVP)

As for all that forced abortion/nazi stuff, you're just making yourself sound stupid:rolleyes::p

Victor

Trampas wrote: »

Then you have why should anyone be given child benefit.

If you can't afford children then people shouldn't have them.

Free education and medical care should be enough

Children shouldn't be penalised for their parent's mistakes.

SLUSK

stainluss wrote: »

I understand that children can't work and get an allowance because of this, but i dont think all families (esp. the rich) should get it.

I believe this because children in middle/high income families will get plenty off their parents, but those whose parents can only earn enough to take care of themselves should get some money for their children.

Now would be a good time to impose this as the economy is leaking money and we need to think of simple ways to cut govt. expenditure.

Thoughts?

Scrap child benefits, privatize education altogether. If you can't afford kids, don't get them.

eamon234

stainluss wrote: »

The way i proposed would mean that child benefit would only be given to those who couldnt afford to feed and clothe their kids.

You obviously don't have kids. It involves slightly more than feeding and clothing them.

ntlbell

eamon234 wrote: »

You obviously don't have kids. It involves slightly more than feeding and clothing them.

can people stop saying

"do you even have kids"

"you obviously don't have kids"

You don't need to have a poxy child to understand what's involved.

people have younger brothers/sisters/neicies/nephew's

It's a trait of parents on here i can't stand.

"if you don't have kids your too stupid to understand"

get a grip.

stainluss

nipplenuts wrote: »

So, what you are saying is: If I sit at home and breed I should get child benefit, but if I work my ass off and earn a decent living I should be penalised?

Is that what you are saying?

First off, youre not being penalised. You are living a normal life and able to provide for your children.

Secondly, if you sit at home and breed, doing **** all work, your kids should get child benefit, because their parents are lazy and unable to provide, the children should not be penalized (as you put it)
(That said, most who need child benfit work hard, they just arent getting paid very well.
Though it happens, many middle class cling to the perception of all people on lower income who need these benfits as lazy people who just keep producing kids. In most cases, the people who get it are trying there best but need a little help)

Pete4779

stainluss wrote: »

I understand that children can't work and get an allowance because of this, but i dont think all families (esp. the rich) should get it.

To make it extra fair, also stop making the "rich" familes from paying it for everyone else.

Where do you think money comes from? The magic money tree?

stainluss

eamon234 wrote: »

You obviously don't have kids. It involves slightly more than feeding and clothing them.

I use those two essentials as an example, you know what i mean.:rolleyes:

I mean all essentials for children

And no, i dont.

My name is URL

SLUSK wrote: »

Scrap child benefits, privatize education altogether. If you can't afford kids, don't get them.

Sure lets go all out and introduce a One-child Policy like communist China :rolleyes:

If people don't have kids because they can't support them then who will support the childless couples in their old age?

It's a very simplistic view to have on the whole thing tbh, and easy to picture when you're not in a position where conceiving is likely.. ie single or whatever

RealityCheck

Pete4779 wrote: »

To make it extra fair, also stop making the "rich" familes from paying it for everyone else.

Where do you think money comes from? The magic money tree?

God theres an awful amount of liberal right wingers on here tonight .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CeNedra

The reason for child benefit is to encourage people to have children. The reality is that without a reproductive % of more than 2.x per couple (x = some number that I can't remember off the top of my head) we will be in trouble i.e. we won't have enough working people in the coming years to support pensions etc etc. Declining birthrates are not something Govts want, you want a thriving birth rate ..... hence an encouragement to people to have kids i.e. child benefit, long maternity leave etc etc etc.

It may be something that we can no longer afford ... but then again we can't afford a declining birth rate ............

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ntlbell

stainluss wrote: »

I mean all essentials for children

Like gripe water

(in house parents joke, you won't get it ner ner ner ner ner)

My name is URL

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Catch 22 much?

The people referred to are too 'poor' to have kids, so saving for retirement wouldn't be so easy presumably

ntlbell

My name is URL wrote: »

Catch 22 much?

The people refereed to are too 'poor' to have kids, so saving for retirement wouldn't be so easy presumably

It's grand, they can sponge around in the state nursing home's

what's the biggie?

stainluss

Pete4779 wrote: »

To make it extra fair, also stop making the "rich" familes from paying it for everyone else.

Where do you think money comes from? The magic money tree?

I understand your feelings, but where else would the get the money.

Some middle class workers would even be paying for their own child benefit:)
It should be treated as a charity contibution because thats what it is.
Just to recap, its for the kids, not the parents.

At the moment, youre taxes are paying for child benefit for those who dont deserve it and probably use it to pay a butler.:P

How does this make you feel?
Yes, its in Frankfurt:p

jhegarty

stainluss wrote: »

and probably use it to pay a butler.:P

So your idea of a middle/high earner is someone who has a butler ?

ntlbell

jhegarty wrote: »

So your idea of a middle/high earner is someone who has a butler ?

I think the hint was in the :P <--- ?

Mr. Presentable

stainluss wrote: »

First off, youre not being penalised. You are living a normal life and able to provide for your children.

Secondly, if you sit at home and breed, doing **** all work, your kids should get child benefit, because their parents are lazy and unable to provide, the children should not be penalized (as you put it)
(That said, most who need child benfit work hard, they just arent getting paid very well.
Though it happens, many middle class cling to the perception of all people on lower income who need these benfits as lazy people who just keep producing kids. In most cases, the people who get it are trying there best but need a little help)

If I am not getting the benefit, why would I contribute to you getting it? I'd sooner spend it on birth control or sterilisation for those who can't live and breed within their means.........

tudlytops

I totally get you, i was a financial analyst and entitled to children allowance, but if I'm to be honest I didn't need it.

Children allowance should be means tested as should all other benefits, all of them.

People like moaning, to me is simple if you can't afford to have children, then don't have them.

We live in a nanny state, whatever happens there will be a benefit for it, claim for this or that, social welfare will sort it out.

Mr. Presentable

stainluss wrote: »

I understand that children can't work and get an allowance because of this, but i dont think all families (esp. the rich) should get it.

I believe this because children in middle/high income families will get plenty off their parents, but those whose parents can only earn enough to take care of themselves should get some money for their children.

Now would be a good time to impose this as the economy is leaking money and we need to think of simple ways to cut govt. expenditure.

Thoughts?

If you only want thoughts that agree with your own, why bother starting the thread? It comes across as mealy-mouthed and agendaist.

And let's call a spade a spade here: Those who don't provide for their children are not using the child benefit to provide for them either. If it is truly to be for the benefit of the child it should be in the form of clothing and food etc where required. Not cash.

tudlytops

And another thing if they want people to go to work, its simple, make all those on benefit, do a course or attend a job centre from 9am to at least 4PM, if they don't show up don't pay them their benefits, children or no children.

they would so get a job, because they could make more money working 9 to 4 then they would on benefits.

And don't tell me people with children can't, I have children and have always worked, when i had my frist baby i was working 12 hour days as a security guard, all I could get, paid 2 child minders, yes it was hard but my children will never think money comes from the post office.

tudlytops

If it is truly to be for the benefit of the child it should be in the form of clothing and food etc where required. Not cash.[/quote]


Yes what a great idea

ntlbell

tudlytops wrote: »

Yes what a great idea

the problem is the cost to admin it.

deafeats the purpose.