to think the CB abolition has had an effect a bit like kicking an ants' nest

[OrmRenewed]

on MN

And the calls for 'someone else' ie the elderly, to have their benefits cut have started already.

I have very little nice to say about the Tories but if they have to make cuts, I'd rather CB went than see cuts in other areas. It seems a reasonable place to start.

I agree that CB is not a necessity for higher rate tax payers. We will be affected and it is harsh but it does make sense that benefits should be only given to those with a need.

Wrt the single parent v double income family that does appear unfair but the same could also be said for the council tax rebate. Single occupants receive a 25% rebate whereas married / co hab pay 100%. There will be many single households earning far more than 2 person and to me this is also unfair. Of course there will be married / co hab couples who lose both ways ie only one income over 44k but 2 household so full council tax. There will always be winners and losers wrt benefits/taxation.

On another issue I'm really happy the gov are finally looking at capping the total benefits that will be paid out as our current system is a farce. How can a family rake in 30k + a year for doing sweet fa whilst another slogs away, pays their own rent/bills and takes home 20k? I'm all for ensuring the genuine people with a real need are looked after which is what our benefit system was set up for.

"I would rather they capped child benefit than cut services to the elderly, nhs, education or made people redundant"

Agree 100%. People always seem to want to see the cuts made elsewhere. Is this complaining really just because someone else isn't losing money?

Beenbeta-I will lose cb and think this is fair-I have a brother who has Parkinson's disease and is surviving on benefits and he will lose out far more with the cuts and attacks on services.
A lot of people on here just don't seem concerned with the awful situation faced by the really poor and most vulnerable sections of society.

Also Beta-I don't agree with your definition that someone on £45,000 is on a low middle income-perhaps that definition may ring true in Notting Hill but not in most parts of the country.

When you pay your taxes you do so because there is a social contract. Ie. If you each pay in then you get an equal benefit/cost which is deemed to be broadly fair and the vulnerable are provided for. This is how society works. So to impose more taxes (which is what the withdrawal of the CB effectively is) on people who are on half the income of other families is very unfair.

ManicMother

Seven years living together before marriage and then a seperate bank account. Thats enough of a danger signal for anyone. The fact that you couldn't see through this prat shouldn't mean that taxpayers have to pay for your mistake, "pour encourager les autres"

You should have seen a lawyer as soon as he did this.

"I think once it (universal CB) goes it will never come back regardless of who is in power because really it makes no sense whatsoever and never has."

There used to be a tax deduction for each child. This was withdrawn and CB increased to offset the losses on the basis that a tax deduction benefited high earners more than the less well off. The flat rate was introduced to make everything "fairer", and a promise made that this would not be removed.

Now the promise not to remove this has been broken, what else is in danger.

And if she didn't know? How can you prevent your husband from opening a bank account that isn't in joint names, if he doesn't tell you? Via crystal ball?

Loudlass

Easy, check the bank stements.

careybliss - quite right. Its the social contract in the tax/benefit system that really matters here.

Its the same with the Labour 10p tax debacle. The poorest in society were hit by a tax rise that was unforseen and Govt failed to rectify the unfairness when it was revealed.

Cutting the defict by reducing benefits and raising taxes is one thing. There is broad politcial support or at least acceptance of that. Doing by cutting a benefit to less wel off people while some better off people still receive the benefit (or pay less of their income in tax) is just not right and no matter how the Coalition dress it up.

Better to climb down properly now with a promise to address the unfairness and make the cut in a better way than be forced into it later as they undoubtedly will. It is dominating headlines as David Cameron stands up to speak today. It makes him look bad and takes away from the real messages he needs to send about the hard choices being made.

Told you told you told you so.

This is what the Tory party does.

David Cameron is useless. He has wavered and wobbled for the last four years without any clear philosophy. Remeber "sharing the benefits of growth" as the economy hurtled into oblivion. The cobbled together "big society", that no-one understands, is a joke. That's why he failed to win the election against the worst prime minister and government since the thirties.

Lack of any backbone is also why they compromised at the last minute on CB with the LibDems, who are clear on what they want. The £44k is the level below which all the teachers, college lecturers and civil service middle managers, the LibDem voters, earn. So double income LibDem families won't be hurt, but families with one higher income earner and a stay at home partner, more likely Tory voters, will.

It won't be the last Tory mistake, just the first of many.

BeenBeta - If they don't climb down from it I think it would be seen as the equivalent of the poll tax. I agree that there is some measure of support for the bitter pills to be swallowed balancing the books but it needs to be perceived to be fair or there will be a political backlash. I don't buy the argument that it's too intrusive and bureaucratic to implement a fair system for calculating Child Benefit. How can you make that argument? What kind of government takes that kind of decision? A short-lived one I'd say.

As long as thye change the rules so its on family income and not one person then I'm OK with the benefit being withdrawn. Either way we loose CB so have no personal vested interest.

True. When I had to pay a CM I was paying at least £80 a week, so it used all my CB and more.

AGREE!!!!

look I like my £80 pm, but in all honestly I can live without it.

better me than the NHS, or other such causes

in years to come, the idea that people earning OK money got govt funds will be laughable

I will not need CB if i carry on working, as well as DH. I do not see why it was a right..it was a privelege. We are far too used to handouts and banking on them before we've even received them. Let those who use CB to pay for food, heating, essentials carry on, be supported, and let those who pay for private education, 2nd cars, foreign holidays realise how fortunate they are.

I will not need CB if i carry on working, as well as DH. I do not see why it was a right..it was a privelege. We are far too used to handouts and banking on them before we've even received them. Let those who use CB to pay for food, heating, essentials carry on, be supported, and let those who pay for private education, 2nd cars, foreign holidays realise how fortunate they are.

what i clearly need is to avoid double posting!

I have now stopped being angry and am simply laughing incredulously at your head-in-the- clouds naivity, welsh. Of course I saw a lawyer, (which was a bit tricky as I had no means of payment, lawyers are not renowned for their charity, and there's a limit to what you can achieve in your free half-hour but that's another matter)and we are now blissfully divorced. I did not expect the taxpayer to support me, my comments were about your simplistic views of relationships and human behaviour. Which is not really what this thread is about, so enough about that.