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.

Newwave, and you think that what Labour did was ok?

Like handing out CTF for all? (I dont't need it)

Pregnancy grant? (Used for upgrading the buggy bought)

They handed out money left right and centre, money that they did not have. Why? To try retain voters.

Agree newwave-think it is rather amusing that higher rate mumsnetters are up in arms about this but indifferent to all the other cuts!

The big problem for the country is that clever high earners are not having enough children and the feckless underclass are having too many.

CB should have been cut and limited to no more than four children. The better off don't need to be discouraged financially from having more children.

amarone, bottom line, labour made mistakes (sucking up to the rich being one of them) BUT I did not hear anyone complaining about all the new schools and hospitals and they tried to help the worst off.

By contrast the Tories deliberatly try to "do down" the worst off in our society and they relish doing it, they are not called "the nasty party" without good reason. "Daves" gloss is now coming off and the glee in which Osborne is sticking the knife in appalls me.

Thatcher was at least honest when she said "there is no society" todays Tories try to make out that they are decent people, do not be taken in they are the same old scum bags.

When I say Tory I mean the Tory establishment not the fools who vote for them.

YANBU, Orm - fair play to take CB away from higher earners (we are not in 40% tax bracket but even so it feels mad that we are still getting a benefit)

BUT insane to work it on individual rather than family income.

Why didn't they just go back to taxing CB? Its been taxed in the past, so obviously not impossible to do (and that was in the pre-computer era), and then they could fix the losses to poorer families by tweaking TCs. There'd still be differences between single/dual earner families, but less extreme.

And if the 'feckless underclass' have contraceptive problems, ask to be sterilised, and are refused...how do they stop from having more dc? Do they have to have a termination even if they find it morally objective just because they have had a contraceptive failure? Real life happens...

And who says the 'feckless underclass' aren't clever? Some of them may well be clever, but didn't have the opportunity to do much about it. Or they may have very clever children who in turn become high rate tax payers. Being poor does not necessarily mean that you have a low IQ. I find that quite offensive, actually, Welshexpat.

Bloody hell Welsh, just throw some petrol and strike a match, why dont you. :o

There is no simple solution, is there?

I come from a very socialist country where everyone (?) is having a good standard of living.

The problem is, you are not allowed/enabled to better yourself. Everyone should be the same. Is that right?

Not everyone is the same.

You want to better yourself, you cannot, ...so you move abroad.

That is not good for any country. Brain/financial drain. (Possibly not 'brain' in my case!).

Imho the axe is falling hard now so that they can spend towards the latter part of their term and make everyone fall in love with them. Sooo not gonna happen here.

amorone.

After reading these posts from all the confirmed socialists that this country has developed, you must realise that that you came to the wrong place.

As you said so well, redistribution of income is the road to social and economic decline.

Welsh, so let the rich have the feast and the poor be glad of the crumbs from their table ?

Welsh, this is not only a socialist issue, it is a feminist one. There is a reason that CB is still paid to women. There are a significant number of women whose partners earn over this threshold, who still have to beg for money for food. CB should be paid to women - for some it is the only income they have. If it is means tested, it should be means tested on the mother.

Newwave.

You argue the socialist case eloquently.

There is another way and its called social mobility. The state should provide the means for the hardworking and clever to be the best that they can.

But not provide such a social safety net and government administrative apparatus that people don't need to be part of the productive economy. Look at our government deficit and adverse balance of payments to see where that has left us.

Agree clem

clemetteattlee,

Anyone getting married should make sure they know their partner's character. They should not expect the taxpayer to pay for their lack of research or mistakes.

that is outrageous.

You might have a point there Welshexpat but it doesn't help the children going to bed hungry.

So are you saying that if a woman marries a man who only starts being violent towards her when she becomes pregnant, it's her own fault for not doing her 'research' properly?

(not my situation, btw, but I know someone it Is/ was their situation)

social mobility refers to people moving up the ladder. the current government are doing the opposite through their welfare reform, their schools, their university fees etc etc. they will strive to make people on benefits live in even further dire poverty making it harder to get back to work. you can encourage people to work by providing affordable childcare and help as the tax credits did. or you can just make people starve. take your pick.

Anyone whose husband is earning over £44k and allowing the children to go hungry should look at the relationship forum. There is plenty of advice there on her options.

What do her children eat whilst their mother weighs up her options on the Relationship forum?

lego

Social mobility is lower now than it was in the nineteen fifties, when incomes were much lower than today and there was real "starving" poverty.

It is the awful state education system and the inflated welfare state that is trapping people in the income group into which they were born.

TheCrackFox.

Don't be melodamatic. I doubt there are any children going to bed hungry tonight in the circumstances that you describe.

Welsh, in the 1950's the wage gap between the rich and poor was far lower.

Since then the rich and connected have made sure that their standard of living has risen far above that of the disadvantaged.