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.

southeastastra - I am.

Tough as it sounds, these are benefits that should never have been paid in the first place. The State has no place in subsidising private choices between men and women (children).

bumpsoon- you know people now are working full-time, and paying tax and NI. Do you think we will get any kind of pension or benefit when we retire?
We will be lucky if we can ever retire. We will be the first generation to have a lowered life expectancy, because we will have to work until we drop. There won't be a retirement for us. There are many retired people who do not actually need their winter fuel allowance, just as there are many who do. Raising the personal tax allowance and cutting out some of these benefits that are costly to administer would probably be a good move though.

sea- I think it should be cut to those on certain income levels, not to those who need it.

then perhaps the state should be fairer with regards to tax and pay higher wages.

i don't think a man who hasn't had to survive on maternity pay could understand how helpful cb is.

blimey some countries pay people to have children - tories are hitting the worst off - as usual.

I see you live up to your name BA.

Where do you think the next generation of workers/contributers is going to come from? Immigration alone?

i think the problem in monmartre is that the middle earners who really do rely on this will be the ones to have it cut. as per usual

you're stuffed under this government if you are at that income level.

Well said Barmy Army. The lunacy of taxing us and drip feeding it back minus the bureacracy costs are astounding.

So wasteful.

Well- I would say that if you pay tax in the top bracket, you do not require a £20 a week handout for your child (ie household income over £75k p.a).
I do think that the personal allowance should be £10k minimum- why the hell are we taxing people who earn

montmartre - the next generation of "workers/contributors" should come from those that can afford to raise them without a specific subsidy. If that means we all start having 1 or children instead of 2 or 3, so be it...at least we'd be living within our means.

But our population increase rate is in decline. We are supporting an ever growing aging (and non-economically active at present) population- the country needs to replicate it's population at least, if not substantially increase it. Each person needs therefore to have at least 1 child, some will need to have 2, as some children will die.

but is this going to work on tax bracket alone as you could have

couple A

• one earning £45k and the other £5k (combined income £51k)who would lose CB

or

Couple B - both earning £44k (combined income £88k) who would be allowed to keep their benefit.

Doesn't seem very fair.

Or is it going to be on based on household income.

Of course we could then find that someone could get a £1500 pay rise and find they lose £2k in CB.

BarmyArmy

"the next generation of "workers/contributors" should come from those that can afford to raise them without a specific subsidy"

snoozathon - I'm still relatively new here, so what does that mean, exactly?

I think it indicates, "No comment".

If so, so what?

BarmyArmy

Where I live, it's impossible to be a couple both working full-time in a 'working-class' type job, be either privately renting or mortgaged up and have children. To balance the books, they would either be in council accommodation, be claiming tax credits and child benefit, or receiving money from elsewhere like inherited money.

So what you are inferring is that only middle-class or up should procreate in our current society. Is that really your deeply held opinion? If so, there is no argument I can pursue with you, hence the

It's not their fault life is more expensive than it used to be - you can't even afford the basics without some subsidy - fact. Don't criticise the people doing their best - criticise the government for not doing more to get house prices down and wages up. You're clearly conservative, but surely you can see that that is how to get people standing on their own two feet, not pulling the rug from under their feet or denying them the right to procreate.

snoozathon - you mean "implying".

I am not implying that only the middle classes should procreate...what I am saying is that we should all plan our lives with a view to being self-sufficient.

It's not the role of Govt to even try to affect property prices or wage levels - any attempt to do so will only end in misery and waste and an even bigger financial problem. As it is, we're in the sh*t because of the last Govt's reluctance to allow the market to work (i.e. by letting RBS and HBOS to go bust).

Oh God yes Snooze, let's all 'blame the government'! It's the poor wimmin and children wot suffer. Jesus, you have no idea what suffering really is.
I'd love to take you on a little tour of the place here in Bangladesh to show you what real poverty looks like.

Here's a thought...how about we all stop moaning and start trying to help ourselves? Hmm?

And please, wake up and smell the bleeding coffee. Bureaucratic monsters taking our money, creaming off big wedges for 'administrative purposes' and handing some back is madness.

I'm with Roger Scruton and use this maxim as a genral rule of thumb
'Conquest's Third Law of Politics tells us the simplest way to explain the
behaviour of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is
controlled by a cabal of its enemies'

And speaking of Bangladesh it may interest you to know something about Professor Muhammed Yunnus, Nobel Prize winner and a man who has probably done more than anyone in the 20 century to alleviate poverty in a meaningful manner.

In this country it involves micro-credit, that is, lending (not giving, lending, important to stress that) people tiny sums of money to set up as independent business people. When and only when they psay it back ,they get more and so it goes on.

Generally speaking, most is lent to women. People said it wouldn't work it would never be repaid, women couldn't manage it. They can and do and Grameen, his micro-credit set-up is now hugely successful and has mande forays into other areas (regular banking, and mobile phone networks.)

The more you earn the more you spend SloanPony. No doubt rich bankers have little disposable income left at the end of each month. That doesnt make them hard up.

Higher rate tax payers should not be receiving any kind of benefit. They should be altering their lifestyle instead.

Oooh I caused controversy

Now don't get me wrong, I won't be manning the barricades to ensure people like me continue to receive CB. But frankly the way I see it is that DH and I pay a huge amount of tax between us and so I see nothing wrong in looking to decrease the net bill by taking benefits we are legally entitled to.

Similarly I could afford to pay for my own prescriptions but as a pregnant woman I am entitled to exemption from charges - is this somehow wrong?

The issue of supporting an ageing poulation will not be solved by people having more children. This will only provide a short term solution- until those chidren grow up and become pensioners etc etc.. more and more people to support more and more pensioners is unsustanable. A population of 70 million in this country is unsustainable, both economically and environmentally.

I don't think people should be paid child benefits for more than maybe 3 children, but something should be put in place to change the attitudes of people who choose to have numerous children as a lifestyle choice. This should be combined with effective advice on long term reliable contraceptive advice. The best and most sustainable contraception is aspiration. If you can see that having fewer children and working to support them is the best way to go, you give the children ambition and aspiration to better themselves. If people see no way of living their lives apart from being supported by the state, and the easiest way to do this is to have child after child they will do this, and their children will see the same and continue the same destructive and unsustainable cycle.

AxisOfEvil - wrong as in you're going to hell in a handcart wrong? No.

Wrong as in a silly example of waste and poorly-targeted benefits? Yes.

We need to return ti the idea that those that can afford to pay, should do so. The remainder can be helped.

You do not need that help.

Removing such help from people like you (and me, for what its worth), would reduce our taxes and allow us to spend more of our money on what we think is best for us, as opposed to what the civil servants and politicians think is.

The best and most sustainable contraception is aspiration.

That is so bang on. I can either (in our current financial situation) afford to have on child and raise him well or have two or three and struggle. I know which I choose.

Removing such help from people like you (and me, for what its worth), would reduce our taxes and allow us to spend more of our money on what we think is best for us, as opposed to what the civil servants and politicians think is.

I absolutely guarantee that we will see no change in the tax that we pay to reflect having CB/CTC taken from us. Guarantee it. After all, middle-earners are here to keep the country going, aren't we? We don't get any "breaks"

I will be so p*ssed off if they take child benefit away because

1. When I was in an abusive, controlling marriage to a gambler, it was one guaranteee that I could feed dd, whether or not the money he earned came to me or Ladbrokes.
2. If dh lost his job tomorrow, it would be one guarantee that I could feed the dc
3. DH is a HR tax payer, but our mortgage and debt and utility bills are so massive it matters little
4. As child benefit had been a part of our income for so long, it's quite reasonable to be a bit terrified of losing it.
5. If anyone brings up that twatty line about only having children you can afford, I would like to ensure they are not in receipt of any form of income replacement/ top up that they could not afford to lose.
6. DH received a modest bonus recently that I hoped might solve some of our debt - possibly, had HMRC not taken 40% off it.

To be honest, I'm surprised child benefit still exists at all. It was introduced after the second world war to help with the cost of re-populating the country. This is hardly relavent now. Surely you did your sums before having children to check you could afford them?