to feel that the Government are doing an excellent job

[JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar]

in getting lower income mothers to snipe at wealthier ones. And vice versa.

In getting WOHMs to snipe at SAHMs (like they needed help). And again, vice versa.

And in getting parents of all incomes to seeth with resentment at the elderly.

I'm sure there are some more successes. Feel free to add some...

wholeheartedly even....[oopsie]

Chil,it is rarely as simple as you make out. I gave up work as we couldn't afford the childcare. As a result we moved to a more expensive area (the south east) so DH could earn more to support us.

What irks me the most is that we are being penalised for being a single-income family. We are already worse off than a couple who both earn 25k as DH pays higher rate tax. Now we will also lose CB while again a couple earning 25k each would not.

There is also the argument, put forward by the labour party, that a welfare state needs some universal benefits, like CB and the NHS, otherwise the people actually paying most of the taxes will become resentful that they pay so much in and get so little out. And look, that's exactly what is happening now...

I am a great supporter of the welfare state, and the benefit system for those who need it. I am a product of the benefits system, I was brought up by a single parent on income support. But cutting universal benefits is just wrong, the NHS will be next.

Karma believer

Really dont you want to reconsidder

This is why my DH works as hard as he does. He pays a lot of tax and to take CB is to effectively make him pay more tax

• sense of entitlement maybe ? -

If I had to live on half our income, I would be up shit creek

Financial planning over stretching ones selves to keep up with the Jones's is not the states problem.

if not in social housing, people really did have little choice but to buy a house

Every one has a choice, buying a house is a financial investment with related risks and not a god given right ie everyone could have privately rented no one was forced to buy. This kind of attitude of buying at all costs is what led to the property price bubble and related problems with the bank - but I supose its easier to blame the bankers,

I would be in favour of seeing CB be returned to the tax relief that it was initially. That way what people receive would be more in proportion to what they have paid

Some pigs are more equal then other pigs..

Some people would like to be able to stay home with their children, but others like to go out to work. Neither should feel penalises for doing what they have/want to do.

i don't get it - cut a benefit from a comparitively wealthy portion of the population - and people think its bad -

cut benefits from less wealthy portions of the populatiopn - people think that's bad -

cuts have to happen somewhere, and if so i favour the first method!

nd it wasn't the banks that caused the defecit, but massive over-spending by 3 years of Labour government.

yangymac, I love being at home with the kids, but it's not that i can 'afford' to, i can't afford not to, don't you see the difference? I loved my job and would love to go back to work part time, but childcare for 2 kids would be all of my salary. The only people i know who can afford to work with 2 or more kids either earn significantly more than i did or have family around to help with childcare.

And look, we've all just started proving the OP's point by arguing amongst ourselves!

to return to thread title ... of pissing off Middle England and a significant proportion of the female electorate. But that's ok because the over 60's can carry on as they were

Can they genuinely claim a mandate to do so ? Surely these changes should not be announced at a Tory confernce when it is (supposedly) a Coalition making the decisions. I almost feel sorry for Nick Clegg having his party hijacked.

KettleOn I agree - the NHS may very well be next. We are being softened up for what will be, if they have their way, a disastrous dismantling of the welfare state.

I am of the opinion that every last one of us benefits from the welfare state. Not just the disadvantaged.

diabolik I agree that buying a home is a choice, with risks attached. But in many areas there is a shortage of rental accomodation suitable for families. And there is little secuirty of tenure. I can see how people feel forced into buying.

Diabolik - My DH works hard to support his family, as do lots of people. He (and everyone who works) pays tax. We don't resent that but we will struggle a lot if he has to pay more. It's just a statement of fact.I do think that a government doesn't have a right to take every spare penny(and some that aren't spare). My DH is working for our childrens benefit, not just the states.

We haven't overstretched to keep up with the Joneses. We bought a house. That's it really. No flash car, holidays. You are making a lot of judgements based on information that I haven't given. If I had half the income I would lose the house. Again, statement of fact.

Renting is not always an option and it isn't always cheaper than a mortgage either. Private renting doesn't always provide security and if everyone tried to rent instead of buy, then demand would definitely outstrip supply.

I bought the cheapest house I could get in my area. It's not big and impressive and is just about big enough for my family.
I didn't 'buy at all costs', but did have to buy.

I don't consider that I am responsible for the irresponsible management of this countries finances. We have had govts who've sold our assets, dismantled industry and instead based our economy on house prices and financial services. These are artificial industries.

I would prefer CB to remain, but if it is not going to, then it seems sensible to return it to its original purpose of being a tax relief. It counteracts the view that the poor are paying for the lattes of the rich (which isn't true, because we all pay tax and some things that are paid for we benefit from and other things we may not directly use)

Of course this is nothing to do with the deficit, this is to do with dismantling the welfare state.

What happened to the billions of pounds lent to the banks and why is that not being handed back? Why is it that banks are still not lending? I could go on forever....

...but making people fight among each other is a great way to steer them away from what's really happening.

On a different note it makes me cringe when government ministers keep saying "well I am losing my child benefit" as if it's the same. Pah. They really are so out of touch with people's realities.

yep - get us all bickering among our selves while they sneak off and do other crappy stuff to make us all worse off in one way or another,

Very clever tactic

Oh for god's sake - they aren't even six months in yet.

I didn't vote Tory but, so far, I've been impressed.

I think the resentment was far, far greater under labour.

Remember the expression - it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always wins?

Agree emy that this is about dismantling the welfare state.

After Tony Blair, I honestly thought things couldn't get worse and I keep being proven wrong.

How have you been proven wrong?

Karmabeliever: that's your choice. Why should anyone help you to feed and clothe your kids or pay a larger mortgage...can't believe you actually wrote that down.
If we are lose the child benefit to help with the catastrophic mess the Labour govt left, well, so be it; at least no-one can whinge that the better off are getting away with it.
Get a grip everyone, when they talked about cuts it means all of us, so stop being so nimby-ish.

edgarallinpaink: well said! The bankers seem to be getting most of the ire thrown in their direction, whilst Labour can blithely carry on being able to comment on what they would do if they were in govt; (I personally don't know how they dare)...well thanks guys, but you've been in govt, and you made a shocking job of it. Seems to be a bitt Groundhog days-ish Labour gets in: the country's in a mess: Tories get in and clear up the mess, only for Labour to get in again and take the glory for a couple of years before it all collapses in a heap. It is Labour not the bankers who got us into this mess.

The SAHM's with DP's who earn more than £44k who are complaining about losing CB seem to be forgetting (or maybe are too busy reading the tabloid headlines that they haven't noticed) that it highly likely that a tax allowance transfer system will be brought in to allow the non-working parent to transfer some or all of their tax allowance to their spouse.

If they decide to go for even half of the £6k tax allowance, a SAHM would have to have more than 3 children to be worse off and they will certainly be better off than families where both parents work.

With regards to choices, I agree pretty much with what Chill has been saying.

cedar it's not a large mortgage, it's just a large amount of our monthly income, once tax has been paid. People talk about the £44,000 threshold, but that's not what we are actually getting, so I think it gives a bit of a false idea. I'm just saying that I don't have money left over at the end of the month, so this will affect my family. Not everyone with the same income is in the same financial position.

I don't expect other people to pay for my choices,(my husbands tax/NI contributions more than cover our CB) but in being taxed more,middle earners are being squeezed in all directions. If you have expensive fixed outgoings, losing CB is a big chunk of monthly income to lose. If the govt truly had no access to money other than the money saved through paying CB, then I would probably take this better, but the fact is they could get it back from the banks. I gather bonuses are pretty much back to what they were for a lot of bankers, so business as usual. The govt could reduce our military involvement abroad. I'm sure there are lots of things they could do.

Also,it's not as if this money will go to people worse off than me, it will raise money for the govt and help dismantle the welfare state.

Everybodies taxes help pay for CB, but everybodies tax contributions help pay for things that not everyone will use. It's the way our society works and I think we are better for it. I do think this is the thin end of the wedge and before long it will be the NHS and 'free' education.

lenak, from what I've read the transferable tax allowance will only apply to basic rate tax payers.

I just hate this stereotype of SAHMs with partners earning over 44k somehow being spoilt rich yummy mummies.

Now excuse me while I get in my 4x4 to go take my little darlings to ballet lessons funded by the state. Sorry, I mean my clapped-out 10 year old car to take the kids to the park in the rain.

cedar this has provoked a fair bit of nibyism, I agree.

But in all honesty my concerns aren't regarding my own finances (neither of us are higher rate tax payers and we don't claim tax credits in any form).

My concern is that the government are launching an attack on the welfare state. Not just benefit claimants or SAHMs nor indeed women and children (although these stand to be the worst hit). But the whole kit and kaboodle.

As I stated earlier, we all benefit from the welfare state - even if we don't directly receive funds. It is also, imo, a bloody great pillar of a civilised society.

here, here karma.