Yay! Looks like Child Benefits are next on Dave's hitlist...

[cupcakesandbunting]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11009535

Speculation, my bum. We all know what's coming, Dave.

I think it's pretty unreasonable to say if you couldn't afford children without CB then you shouldn't have had them! We currently receive £200 pm (3 children) and by any standards that is a lot of money to be deleted from your budget overnight. Yes, some will say you should be able to afford your own children but come on, CB is something you wouldn't have expected to be withdrawn all of a sudden. We don't earn 45k, but even if we were, I think (on top of losing CTC soon), this is hammering people way too hard, way too quickly. Unless we're assuming it'll only be cut for those on the 50pc rate of tax??

I do wish the media would stop banging on about middle-class when they mean middle income when discussing this sort of thing.

Agree with someone further up (expat I think) that the Winter Fuel Allowance does need looking at. Child benefit more difficult because of the HCP issue.

the problem with means tested things is that circumstances can change at the drop of the hat and the family income can plummet dramatically (loss of job/death of significant earner etc). If you are refused CB on the grounds that your family unit earns too much, do we know how quickly benefits will be "restored" should the income drop below this magic figure? weeks, months ... a year?

This country IMHO has made it FAR too easy to have children and know that they will be supported by the state!

I chose to have ONE child because I knew I couldn't afford to have anymore given my outgoings and I wasn't prepared to claim benefits. I have NEVER relied on my Child Benefit (I won't deny it's been a help) and I've put it away in a trust fund for my child when she reaches University age...how many others can say the same?

I'm a little aggrieved at some of the headlines lately in relation to 'benefit scroungers' in general tbh and how they can have (one in question) TWELVE children and not work yet us taxpayers have to foot the bill of their lifestyle choices.

Bring on the means testing I say, and ensure that those who want a family, provide for them by working like all other countries have to !!!!!!!!!

RANT OVER!

peppermint I agree with you 100%. I am very weary of this "oh but it's nobody's business but mine how many children I have" and "it's my riiiiiiight". It is the business of the taxpayers. In another life I'll have 6 kids, in this life - I can afford two! That means I foot the bills. Can you just imagine having 6 kids and the shame/horror of not being able to feed them?

Well bully for you if you can afford to invest your child benefit. I personally cannot afford to do that (am on far far less than 45k) and many others are in the same position. If you can afford to invest it then am assuming you don't actually need it.

I accept the point about people willy nilly having baby after baby but tbh the number of children is often the least of the problems in these families. What about those who have 4, 5, 6 or more children and then fall upon hard times - do we tar them with the same brush?

Sadly there are those who will NEVER provide or contribute to society.

I agree too, so do most people. If you cannot afford to have children, do not have them. Simple.

What about someone with six children who loses their job? Do they have to get rid of the four they can no longer afford?

Or are you talking about different benefit scum?

My dh earns about the same amount mentioned on these posts. I am sahm and if they scrap cb then I will be fucked(excuse language). We have 3 children,live in a tiny ex council house and drive a crappy people carrier.
My dh might earn a decent wage but is also in the highest tax bracket so already screwed that way.
All that will happen if they do means test cb is that the people who go out n work hard n pay taxes will be far worse off and yet still subsidising the benefit scroungers.

This country is going to the dogs, it really is. Last one to leave, turn out the light eh?

I mean, look at the rest of the world where people work long days with no unions, have no protection from being kicked out of their homes or being sacked, face arbitrary justice, and as a woman, well you'd know your place and not try to have, like, a job or anything.

And our politicians are like totally on the gravy train, too. Corruption in Afghanistan and Nigeria is nothing compared to this shithole.

Yeah, that'd be better. God, Britain is shit. Perhaps those who agree would like to move to China? I believe they have a really effective policy in place.

How many of the sanctimonious refuse to claim CB? Just wondering. Or is it ok to take money you never actually needed just so you can now jump on your high horse and proclaim that it's fine for it to be stripped from those who always did need it?

here here CERYSMATTHEWS.

What about someone with six children who loses their job? Do they have to get rid of the four they can no longer afford?

Or are you talking about different benefit scum?

Tether, I think that most of us would agree that popping out six children when you are financially stable is a lot different to popping out six children when you rely solely on benefits. If you have no job, long-term, shut your legs/keep your peter in your pants. Simple, really.

They could always bring back the work house.

cupcakes

"If you have no job, long-term, shut your legs/keep your peter in your pants. Simple, really."

What about the profound psychological need to have a child? I can be logical right now and put off ttc, although it takes willpower. If I had no job and no prospects of finding one, the idea of having something warm and my own to nurture is a pretty powerful one. I mean, that's fact, it's visible all over the world. You can't change it, even though obviously it's a problem. And when you can't change something, you look at ways of making the situation easier, ie benefits. It doesn't hurt you or I, so leave them be. Tories have an ideological hate of poor people and their motivations, but we're better than Tories on MNet, we can be logical rather than knee-jerk.

There really isn't any point in being judgey about less well-off families IMO, it's like judging overweight people and saying 'well, just eat less, fatty!'

"keep your peter in your pants" ROFL - fabulous expression.

Or we could go all JK "PUT SOMETHING ON THE END OF IT" to huge applause.

Honestly though many of these families have so many problems that the number of children is the least (or most depending on your viewpoint) of their concerns. Life "just happens" to most of them - they don't take responsibility because they don't think about it. I work with families where three generations have never worked and they know nothing else. Not only are they not employed but in many cases they are unemployable - how we get over this I am not sure.

Can't you see that x years ago we didn't have or need "credits" to top up salaries. How did everyone manage then? We've only had these "credits" in very recent times. I am NOT criticizing anyone for claiming them I am astounded that a first world economy has such a skewed economy that it needs to subsidize it's workers???

There should always be a safety net for people when times are hard or they are genuinely unable to work.

Ypu get taxed, then they give you the tax back if you earn under a certain amount?? It's crap money management and trapping people into government dependency.

Tethersend: I didn't take Maternity leave. I stopped working when I was a few weeks pregnant and realized that my job could not be done well part time. I couldn't be out of the house for regular 14 hour days with a baby at home. I resigned.

You stopped working when you were a few weeks pregnant? What was your job, deep sea diver?

Bollocks, let's just sterilise poor people so they don't try and reproduce.

Thanks for answering one of my questions Alouiseg- did you give any thought to the other one about Teachers/Doctors/Firefighters?

They should send the kids up the chimneys of the rich

The trouble with means-testing is that it is massively more complex to administer. Administrators have to be paid to work out whether people are entitled or not. It's not just a little bit more expensive. It's massively more expensive. I reckon that the cost of means testing winter fuel payments would pretty well outweigh any savings made in not subsidising wealthy pensioners.

Integrating the tax and benefits system (which would make means testing significantly easier) is long overdue. But of course, that too would cost ...

I'm not judgey about less well-off families, I'm judgemental about people who decide to bring X amount of children into the world without the means to fund it.

How dare those plebs reproduce