Britain to scrap Child benefits payments to middle class

Lemegeton

a sensible and long overdue idea

DonJose

Its this kind of crap that would make you want to give up working and live the life of a long term dole scumbag. It seems that the hard working taxpayer is the only person taking the hits nowadays.

daltonm

SugarHigh wrote: »

Child benefit is for the kids not the parents so what difference does it make where the parents are from?

Sorry to pull you on this but Child Benefit is not "for" the kids - it is for the parents, to assist them with the costs of raising a child.

i_love_toast

DonJose wrote: »

Its this kind of crap that would make you want to give up working and live the life of a long term dole scumbag. It seems that the hard working taxpayer is the only person taking the hits nowadays.

Thats the way I see it. Of course scrap child benifit for the upper class and means test it for upper/middle class salaries but for lower middle class I dont think it is really fair to scrap it completely.

Its like the unmarried mothers allowance, its an incentive for scummy mothers to never work, lie on their arse and raise a new breed of scum. (not saying all single mothers).
How about you get an allowance if you raise your kid well, he has an excellent attendance record in school, good grades in school and when/if he goes to college or further education he gets tutors or what ever to help him by. A mate of mine in college got a checked for 500e twice a year because he was in college and raised by a single mother. This was supposed to be for books yet it was spent on drink and nights out of course.

jackiebaron

WindSock wrote: »

Population decline is not such a bad thing.

It is. Less workers supporting more and more OAPs.

Earthhorse

jackiebaron wrote: »

It is. Less workers supporting more and more OAPs.

It can be a bad thing for a country if it operates a closed economy, unwilling to entertain the thought of immigrant workers. Luckily, we are not in that position.

Population decline is probably a good thing from a global point of view.

stovelid

A few people I know oppose it because they think people in that wage bracket are often cash-poor as they often have high mortgage or other debts to consider. :pac:

Like a lot of people, we put the children's allowance in an account for them that might one day go towards college or similar so while it is being used for them in one sense, I wouldn't complain if it only went to people that genuinely needed it for everyday childrearing costs.

procure11

I think the decision to curb the payment is a step in the right direction but the implementation could be the difficult part.

mitresize5

So remove it from middle class workers who are being sqeezed from every angle by increased mortgage rates, increasd taxes and lower wages but are still the ones expected to bail this country out of the mess it is in

Leave it to those on welfare where being an unmarried mother is seen as a viable career choice.

genius - I despair for this country at times and cannot see my long term future here

smash

KINGVictor wrote: »

C'mmon what does a family earning over €100,000 with 2 children need CB payments for?

Maybe to help pay the approx €2,000 a month Crèche fees.

strobe

Proper order tbh. It's a nonsense situation for people earning E100,000 a year to be taking government handouts.

seamus

It's a populist move.

Only one-fifth of UK households actually earn more than £50,000 per year. We should also consider that the majority of children will be concentrated in the lower earning households - both because poorer people have more children and because higher earners tend to be older.

So even if we're generous and say that this move affects 10% of those claiming child benefit in the UK, you still have the other 90% claiming child benefit. It's a saving - absolutely - but not as ground-breaking or controversial as the media would have you believe. The Vicky Pollards of the UK with 6 children and paying no income tax will continue to leech the system.

We could expect to find similar trends here. As usual, those paying the most tax get to pay more, and those paying nothing are unaffected.

stovelid

mitresize5 wrote: »

So remove it from middle class workers who are being sqeezed from every angle by increased mortgage rates,

The rates on the mortgages they took out under their own volition you mean?

mitresize5

stovelid wrote: »

The rates on the mortgages they took out under their own volition you mean?

strange that you felt the need to edit that sentance in half and completely ignore the second half of it ....

yes the mortgage I took out at my own volition and continue to pay, along with my increased taxes on a lower take home pay .....

and your point was?

twinytwo

KINGVictor wrote: »

Apparently, the coalition government in the Uk are planning to means test the universal child benefit payments. This could potentially mean that families whose income are over a yet to be determined threshold will not recieve this payments any longer.( speculations are that it will be set at £50,000)

Source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11462986

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317328/TORY-CONFERENCE-Middle-class-families-face-losing-child-benefit.html



IMHO, I think it is long time coming and quite common sensical in light of the current economic circumstances, the opposition have called the proposed policy an assault on families, an assertion i find laughable considering the huge deficits the country faces.

I think the government in Ireland should introduce similar measures in the upcoming budget and to be honest they should have done so in last years budget- C'mmon what does a family earning over €100,000 with 2 children need CB payments for?

What do ye think?

Im sure there are legal issues to removing a childs benefits just because of whats the parents earn. With the CB being for the benefit of the child and they are all equal or something... could be completely wrong though.

stovelid

mitresize5 wrote: »

and your point was?

That you (and I ) too out a mortgage of (y)our volition and that should include the assumption that your ability to pay may be affected by interest rate changes and the effects of an economic downturn.

I have every sympathy for people struggling with mortgages but not to the extent where high-earners should be entitled to children's allowance.

It's ironic that people doing nixers are crucified for being a drain on taxes but that people with highly-paid jobs expect state support.

Why is a high mortgage any different to a large credit card debt or loan?

Again: I'm the last person to belittle people struggling with large mortgages and hate the gloating that goes on (as any of my posts will testify) but the needs of the average and lower-paid families for state support for children is more pressing than high earners with self-inflicted debt.

mitresize5

stovelid wrote: »

That you (and I ) too out a mortgage of (y)our volition and that should include the assumption that your ability to pay may be affected by interest rate changes and the effects of an economic downturn.

I have every sympathy for people struggling with mortgages but not to the extent where high-earners should be entitled to children's allowance.

It's ironic that people doing nixers are crucified for being a drain on taxes but that people with highly-paid jobs expect state support.

Why is a high mortgage any different to a large credit card debt or loan?

Again: I'm the last person to belittle people struggling with large mortgages and hate the gloating that goes on (as any of my posts will testify) but the needs of the average and lower-paid families for state support for children is more pressing than high earners with self-inflicted debt.

agree completely with your points regarding higher paid getting child benefit - its one thing that absolutely needs to go in December

but I do have a problem with it being withdrawn from your average middle class worker whilst being retained in full for those who have never worked and make their living on welfare. (I make a big distinction between those who have fallen on harder times as a result of the downturn and those who have never worked).

I believe that with the impending tax increases that will squeeze the last bit of remaining life out of the middle classes it it time to review the welfare state we live in.

I just watched George Osbourne in the news and Im begining to like this man more and more - he has said that no family on benefits will earn more than a similar family working in the life time of his goverment (paraphrasing).

A Dub in Glasgo

This is a hamfisted way to cut Child Benefit. Have a look at the unfairness of it through the graphic on the BBC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11470983

KINGVictor

twinytwo wrote: »

Im sure there are legal issues to removing a childs benefits just because of whats the parents earn. With the CB being for the benefit of the child and they are all equal or something... could be completely wrong though.

I am not so sure I agree with you. The country is facing a huge deficit crisis and the government has to look for ways to cut spending to balance the books. If they decide to review/modify a particular spend area to achieve this objective, its up to them.

I will be more concerned about the legality issues surrounding the mindless bail-out of financial institutions and the creation of a debt trap for unborn generations.

A simplified way of approach is scrapping CB payments to those can survive without them will be undoubtedly painful , but the key questions are:

• Can they lead reasonably normal lives without this payment-YES
• Will the government save money that can be chanelled elsewhere-YES
• Will the implementation of a policy that aims to cut public spending send positive signals to investors/ international markets- YES
• Will these positive signals result in lower borrowing costs and invariably lead to increased confidence in the Irish economy- I can't say but I still think it is worth a try.

Mister men

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im sorry but thats shocking that someone would say that, a mature student in my class had to get help from the st.vincent de paul to pay his fees and lives on less than 20 a week for food, the woman telling this story isnt hard up shes just in possession of a few extra chromosomes!

What are you talking about? I'm talking about couples on incomes of 100k a year not students.

twinytwo

KINGVictor wrote: »

I am not so sure I agree with you. The country is facing a huge deficit crisis and the government has to look for ways to cut spending to balance the books. If they decide to review/modify a particular spend area to achieve this objective, its up to them.

I will be more concerned about the legality issues surrounding the mindless bail-out of financial institutions and the creation of a debt trap for unborn generations.

A simplified way of approach is scrapping CB payments to those can survive without them will be undoubtedly painful , but the key questions are:

• Can they lead reasonably normal lives without this payment-YES
• Will the government save money that can be chanelled elsewhere-YES
• Will the implementation of a policy that aims to cut public spending send positive signals to investors/ international markets- YES
• Will these positive signals result in lower borrowing costs and invariably lead to increased confidence in the Irish economy- I can't say but I still think it is worth a try.

As it turns out the only way the government can touch the CB is to tax it. They tried to means test it or whatever before but its illegal.

KINGVictor

twinytwo wrote: »

As it turns out the only way the government can touch the CB is to tax it. They tried to means test it or whatever before but its illegal.

Thats news to me, can you provide a credible source for that.

saywhatyousee

can they not re write that part of the constitution child beneit should be means tested like jsa

steddyeddy

Mister men wrote: »

What are you talking about? I'm talking about couples on incomes of 100k a year not students.

I wasnt refering to your point but back onto the child benifits system I think that the beauty and purpose of the welfare system is that it helps those who need it, it shouldnt be spread evenly across the board. Of course it should be means tested but at the same time be careful with the cut off points you apply, If your not careful you,ll knock the middle class out of the equation all together and be left with a lower class dependant on social welfare and a higher class.

Hill Bicks

Am i right in thinking that if you have four kids you can claim nearly 700 euro a month in child benefit seems like an outrageous amount but I've been told by a few people that this is the case.

Hotais

Hill Bicks wrote: »

Am i right in thinking that if you have four kids you can claim nearly 700 euro a month in child benefit seems like an outrageous amount but I've been told by a few people that this is the case.

Yep....
1 kid 150
2 kids...300
3 kids...487
4 kids...674
5 kids...861
6 kids...1048
7 kids...1235
8 kids...1422

And if you're a single mother you'll get (up to) €196 per week...

mitresize5

plus weekly social welfare payment that increments with the number of children you have, plus rent allowance (or social housing), plus medical card, plus back to school allowance and others....

I am 100% for providing for the most vunerable in society but we cannot continue with a system that sees a single mother being a valid career choice.

ballsymchugh

Min wrote: »

I listened in disbelief to Drivetime on Radio 1 last year as Mary Wilson read out texts, one was from a woman whose family earned €100,000 and she said in her text she couldn't afford to take any cuts - think it was a public servant - her husband was a Garda.
Claimed they were finding it hard to make ends meet and they needed everything they got.....

you missed the woman talking on newstalk talking about how much she needed the allowance because she had to pay school fees. she dug her own hole on national radio. granted, she was egged on by henry mckean.

Jimbob1977

A middle class person works hard, pays their taxes (PAYE, PRSI) and might not receive a Children's Allowance Payment for their own child. That does not sound fair.

Why should the middle class i) bankroll the very wealthy and ii) augment the income of unemployed families.... who can receive other entitlements like fuel allowance, medical cards, the dole, etc?

The middle classes can't "carry" the country forever.