High Earners

Maura74

The UK is stopping child benefit for high earners. It is about time too, why parent(s) that are earning over 43k a year should get child benefit as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16539428

largepants

And why should people who never worked a day in their lives get it?

Chuck Stone

largepants wrote: »

And why should people who never worked a day in their lives get it?

Because children aren't allowed to work?

n97 mini

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Because children aren't allowed to work?

That old garbage. It's not the child's money and even the Minister here has acknowledged that it's a payment to parents that's supposed to be spent on the children, nothing more, nothing less.

Icepick

largepants wrote: »

And why should people who never worked a day in their lives get it?

Because this society can't even legalize abortion.

irishh_bob

n97 mini wrote: »

That old garbage. It's not the child's money and even the Minister here has acknowledged that it's a payment to parents that's supposed to be spent on the children, nothing more, nothing less.

even your arguement about bone idle parents were valid , what sense is thier in paying childcare wellfare to people who dont need it

gerryo777

largepants wrote: »

And why should people who never worked a day in their lives get it?

And they're off.....

gerryo777

Icepick wrote: »

Because this society can't even legalize abortion.

What???

Cuddlesworth

gerryo777 wrote: »

What???

Its believed that the legalisation and availability of abortion have a large and positive effect on crime and the lower classes after 16 years.

n97 mini

irishh_bob wrote: »

even your arguement about bone idle parents were valid

Weren't me. That were someone else's argument.

irishh_bob wrote: »

what sense is thier in paying childcare wellfare to people who dont need it

Since you's asking me personally, I don't see any.

Chuck Stone

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Its believed that the legalisation and availability of abortion have a large and positive effect on crime and the lower classes after 16 years.

Source?

bleg

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Source?

Freakonomics.

http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-4/

bleg

Give abortions for free and do away with child benefit, except in exceptional circumstances. If you want to have a child, just like any other investment, you better have the cash.

Doom

Icepick wrote: »

Because this society can't even legalize abortion.

I don't agree with that, but I think there is a good argument for sterilization of certain people....in 1 generation we will have no scum and no one gets hurt:)

Chuck Stone

bleg wrote: »

Freakonomics.

http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-4/

Freakonomics indeed.

Oops-onomics

Did Steven Levitt, author of “Freakonomics”, get his most notorious paper wrong?

ABORTION cuts crime. Unwanted children, the story goes, are more likely to become criminals in later life. Abortion, legalised throughout the United States by the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade ruling in 1973, prevents unwanted pregnancies from becoming unwanted children. Higher abortion rates from the 1970s onwards thus help to explain why crime rates fell in America about two decades later.


That's the theory. But a paper published last week by Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz, two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, finds an embarrassing hole in the evidence. Messrs Donohue and Levitt subjected the data to a battery of tests, some suggestive, others more systematic, in an effort to prove the links in the chain.

Source

Original Critique.

bleg

I was just giving the source dude! Plenty of things in those books that have been proven flawed.

hmmm

Increasingly our society is moving towards that where those who pay tax receive no benefits, and those who pay little or no tax take all the benefit. That's not sustainable or equitable.

jimmycrackcorm

Maura74 wrote: »

The UK is stopping child benefit for high earners. It is about time too, why parent(s) that are earning over 43k a year should get child benefit as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16539428

Perhaps it is the high earners that are actually providing the child benefit in the first place through their tax.

Maura74

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Perhaps it is the high earners that are actually providing the child benefit in the first place through their tax.

Perhaps you are right, but I do not think it will go through until it is changed as it is unfair as it is now. If two parents are working and both earning below the cap then they will have a much higher income than a single parent working.

Icepick

gerryo777 wrote: »

What???

If a society doesn't allow a woman not to have an unwanted child, the society needs to support the child beyond reasonable support.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Maura74 wrote: »

The UK is stopping child benefit for high earners. It is about time too, why parent(s) that are earning over 43k a year should get child benefit as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16539428

I don't see why anyone receives child benefit. if you want to have a child, you should be able to provide for them out of your own pocket. Granted not everyone plans to have a child but the majority of people do. Those that dont can get help from friends and relatives if the need arises.

jimmycrackcorm

Icepick wrote: »

If a society doesn't allow a woman not to have an unwanted child, the society needs to support the child beyond reasonable support.

Society does allow women to have unwanted children unless you believe that no Irish woman has ever had an abortion...

jimmycrackcorm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I don't see why anyone receives child benefit. if you want to have a child, you should be able to provide for them out of your own pocket. Granted not everyone plans to have a child but the majority of people do. Those that dont can get help from friends and relatives if the need arises.

Then why supply free education also?
Who will pay for your pension unless it is the worker of tomorrow?

Suryavarman

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Then why supply free education also?

Education isn't free.

Who will pay for your pension unless it is the worker of tomorrow?

How about people save up for their own retirement?

The_Honeybadger

Maura74 wrote: »

The UK is stopping child benefit for high earners. It is about time too, why parent(s) that are earning over 43k a year should get child benefit as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16539428

Why did you pick 43k as a benchmark? Surely you don't regard a family on that wage as high earners? CB would be an important part of the monthly budget for a family like that.

I would prefer provision of services (i.e. early childcare, hot school lunches etc.) rather than CB, but wouldn't trust the government to do anything except make an expensive balls of it if they tried to move in this direction.

Icepick

Icepick wrote: »

If a society doesn't allow a woman not to have an unwanted child, the society needs to support the child beyond reasonable support.

Ive a better idea, how about they take responsibility for their children and stop expecting everyone else to cough up for their mistakes.

gerryo777

hmmm wrote: »

Increasingly our society is moving towards that where those who pay tax receive no benefits, and those who pay little or no tax take all the benefit. That's not sustainable or equitable.

I'd reckon you'd find that people on benefits for the most part spend all of their money every week, therefore they pay a fair bit of tax. Just because someone is unemployed does not mean they don't pay tax, fair enough not income tax but tax is tax.
Every citizen in this country pays tax one way or the other.
If you think that the majority of people here who are unemployed in this country want to be in that situation then your mistaken.
Part of the reason this country is heading the way it is, is because our government insist on paying unsecured secondary bondholders in our bankrupt banks. If this money was used for infrastructural improvements and to stimulate the economy, thereby taking people off the dole we'd be in a much better place.

murphaph

Icepick wrote: »

If a society doesn't allow a woman not to have an unwanted child, the society needs to support the child beyond reasonable support.

Whatever about the abortion arguments (I'm pro choice myself), women who don't want to keep a baby do have the option of giving it up for adoption. There's plenty of good homes out there.

I don't believe many of the lifestyle welfare spongers get pregnant by accident though, so free abortions etc. wouldn't make a blind bit if difference. The financial incentive to become pregnant, perhaps multiple times, must be eliminated. Child benefits, yes (school uniforms, school meals, school books). Cash benefits (bookies, fags, drink, drugs), no!

irishh_bob

hmmm wrote: »

Increasingly our society is moving towards that where those who pay tax receive no benefits, and those who pay little or no tax take all the benefit. That's not sustainable or equitable.

i thought the poor were paying for the cost of this rescession ?

hmmm

irishh_bob wrote: »

i thought the poor were paying for the cost of this rescession ?

If that's what you really think the propaganda from the vested interests in the poverty industry is working.

The middle classes are the ones who are paying, i.e. the people who bother to work (or want to work) for a living. Unfortunately they are having to carry a substantial part of the population who either don't want to work, or who get paid too much for the work they do.

Motorist

Incentivise the layabouts to propogate more offspring spongers and leeches while workers pay extortionate taxes for everything from dole, child benefit, free housing, medical cards, dental treatment ? And to add insult to injury people who are out working and contributing to the economy would get no benefit themselves while the scroungers are at home smoking cigarettes and feeding their Jeremy Kyle addiction.

No thanks, As bad as society looks today, I'd hate to see what such a proposal would result in 20 years down the line. Seems we're moving toward some kind of thwarted 21st century reverse-Darwinism.

oldyouth

Icepick wrote: »

If a society doesn't allow a woman not to have an unwanted child, the society needs to support the child beyond reasonable support.

Absolute nonsense. Having a child is a lifestyle choice. If you cannot afford to raise and educate one, you should'nt have any.

Icepick

Deleted User wrote: »

Ive a better idea, how about they take responsibility for their children and stop expecting everyone else to cough up for their mistakes.

In other words you want legalize abortion, promote family planning and contraception education.

mikemac1

oldyouth wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Having a child is a lifestyle choice. If you cannot afford to raise and educate one, you should'nt have any.

What about if your husband or wife dies in a road accident or realy any sudden incident?

Not all single parents are feckless you know

n900guy

Maura74 wrote: »

The UK is stopping child benefit for high earners. It is about time too, why parent(s) that are earning over 43k a year should get child benefit as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16539428

Because they pay lots more tax than someone earning less?

You just want people who earn more to set up a direct debit to your account once a month.

Eoin247

hmmm wrote: »

Increasingly our society is moving towards that where those who pay tax receive no benefits, and those who pay little or no tax take all the benefit. That's not sustainable or equitable.

I agree. Go down that road and you'll chase all the high earners out of the country. Then who will pay for all these working class benefits.

oldyouth

mikemac1 wrote: »

What about if your husband or wife dies in a road accident or realy any sudden incident?

Not all single parents are feckless you know

That's where support should be available. Also, I never made any reference to single parents. I merely stated that people, couples or single, should not have children if they are not in a position to financially take care of them

Galwayguy35

hmmm wrote: »

If that's what you really think the propaganda from the vested interests in the poverty industry is working.

The middle classes are the ones who are paying, i.e. the people who bother to work (or want to work) for a living. Unfortunately they are having to carry a substantial part of the population who either don't want to work, or who get paid too much for the work they do.

Ah i see, so its only middle class people who want to/bother to work? Statements like that make my blood boil. Im working class and i have been working constantly since i was 17. And i pay tax the same as you do.

COYW

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Ah i see, so its only middle class people who want to/bother to work? Statements like that make my blood boil. Im working class and i have been working constantly since i was 17. And i pay tax the same as you do.

Sorry to tell you this but you are not working class in the eyes of the hard left then. You are middle class/"well off". When they speak of the "most vulnerable members of society", they are not referring to an honest soul like you. If you earn more than the average industrial wage and god forbid have a pension or savings, they will categorise you as "wealthy".

So many people are getting sucked into this populist garbage from the hard left.

Galwayguy35

COYW wrote: »

Sorry to tell you this but you are not working class in the eyes of the hard left then. You are middle class/"well off". When they speak of the "most vulnerable members of society", they are not referring to an honest soul like you. If you earn more than the average industrial wage and god forbid have a pension or savings, they will categorise you as "wealthy".

So many people are getting sucked into this populist garbage from the hard left.

Thats a new one on me. So i would be in the same class as people who earn double what i make in the year just because i have always worked. As for the hard left i agree they are a deluded bunch all right.

bleg

They should take a portion of the child benefit money and use it to directly fund services. For example you could provide breakfast & lunch in schools, provide schoolbooks and uniforms to kids at source.

This would stop well off people putting the child benefit into a savings account til the child turns 18 and would also stop scumbag parents using the money to buy fags and booze.

murphaph

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Ah i see, so its only middle class people who want to/bother to work? Statements like that make my blood boil. Im working class and i have been working constantly since i was 17. And i pay tax the same as you do.

The "middle class"/"working class" thing doesn't really work anymore.

To my mind, anyone who works and anyone who wants to work (genuinely!) is worthy of the same respect, regardless of what work they do or "class" they are pigeon holed into.

It's the terminally lazy that don't want to work that I have a problem with, and so should every low earning worker.

Count Dooku

gerryo777 wrote: »

Part of the reason this country is heading the way it is, is because our government insist on paying unsecured secondary bondholders in our bankrupt banks. If this money was used for infrastructural improvements and to stimulate the economy, thereby taking people off the dole we'd be in a much better place.

Actually it will be kids who will pay for bailout of banks
Stimulating economy through infrastructural projects will hide unemployment for while, but wont solve anything

bleg

Count Dooku wrote: »

Actually it will be kids who will pay for bailout of banks
Stimulating economy through infrastructural projects will hide unemployment for while, but wont solve anything

Yup, I'm pretty disgusted at the baby boomers who keep heaping debt on my generation.

Maura74

oldyouth wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Having a child is a lifestyle choice. If you cannot afford to raise and educate one, you should'nt have any.

It is not always a lifestyle choice, my niece had 2 children and was expecting the third when her husband of 24 was not feeling well and went to see his GP that sent him to hospital and within days he was dead with a rare form of leukaemia. My niece third child never got to see his father. There are all sort of reason why people are left with children to bring up on their own.

I think the amount is too small at present for a single parent in the UK and they are in dispute about it, I expect it will be about 50k by the time it is implemented.

Also my brother wife died in childbirth she was 21 after their second child and that family never got to see their mother either.

jased10s

Great idea and long overdue.

Problem is in IRL is the payments are way over the top.

I know my sis in law who moved to the USA used to get her mum to cash her child support for her 5 kids once every 6 months which amounted to thousands, and they werent even in the country paying tax.

tayto lover

oldyouth wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Having a child is a lifestyle choice. If you cannot afford to raise and educate one, you should'nt have any.

Can we do the same thing with our taxes which are going to educate the children of people who never worked and never will, rich farmers whose children get all sorts of grants, and people who can self-assess so as not to pay and get grants ?
I always worked and had to educate my own BUT it seems i am also paying for the above.

Icepick

Maura74 wrote: »

It is not always a lifestyle choice, my niece had 2 children and was expecting the third when her husband of 24 was not feeling well and went to see his GP that sent him to hospital and within days he was dead with a rare form of leukaemia. My niece third child never got to see his father. There are all sort of reason why people are left with children to bring up on their own.

I think the amount is too small at present for a single parent in the UK and they are in dispute about it, I expect it will be about 50k by the time it is implemented.

Also my brother wife died in childbirth she was 21 after their second child and that family never got to see their mother either.

Making decisions based on anecdotal evidence leads to bad decisions.

oldyouth

tayto lover wrote: »

Can we do the same thing with our taxes which are going to educate the children of people who never worked and never will, rich farmers whose children get all sorts of grants, and people who can self-assess so as not to pay and get grants ?
I always worked and had to educate my own BUT it seems i am also paying for the above.

Yep, all perfectly achievable, the method used is called a General Election. If enough people really wanted change, they would do it. Seems to me that they don't.

oldyouth

Maura74 wrote: »

It is not always a lifestyle choice, my niece had 2 children and was expecting the third when her husband of 24 was not feeling well and went to see his GP that sent him to hospital and within days he was dead with a rare form of leukaemia. My niece third child never got to see his father. There are all sort of reason why people are left with children to bring up on their own.

I think the amount is too small at present for a single parent in the UK and they are in dispute about it, I expect it will be about 50k by the time it is implemented.

Also my brother wife died in childbirth she was 21 after their second child and that family never got to see their mother either.

Firstly, I'm sorry for your troubles, that's incredible hardship that no one should have to go through.

My point is that the State should assist in circumstances like this when life kicks you in the teeth, not to fund somebody who feels that they want something and the rest of us should cough up

tayto lover

oldyouth wrote: »

Yep, all perfectly achievable, the method used is called a General Election. If enough people really wanted change, they would do it. Seems to me that they don't.

That doesn't seem to work anymore. The people voted for change at the last election and they seem to have got the same again. F.G. policies = F.F. policies.