please someone explain to me how?

[Bigmouthstrikesagain]

That 'people on £15k' are paying my child benefit? I just can't understand it as this - it is the phrase that keeps being trotted out when justifying cutting CB to higher rate tax paying families. It is an emotive image but not one I can subscribe to as the tax paid by my dh is much more than we get back (CB is the only ''benefit' we get).

Obviously we benefit from all the services provided by the public sector as every person in the UK can tax payer or not. That is as it should be and I would support higher taxes for those that can afford it.

Cutting things is one thing but making sweeping emotive statements based on creating an atmosphere of acceptance rather than reflecting reality - pisses me off. I would like a debate based on facts please.

Sorry listening to the Osborne speech has got me all riled. I am not saying that the benefit shouldn't be cut, just it should not be sold the way it has been.

I think that the government is already doing its utmost to divide us, so personally I won't be obliging by slinging mud at others :-)

I'm doing the equivalent of hiding behind the sofa until The Speech is over (if I had the dosh my swearbox would be full)

The general principle of a redistribution of wealth is that the the rich pay in and the poor take out... so that we have a more equal society than we would have otherwise. We all enjoy a good standard of education, equal rights to healthcare and many would not be able to afford such things if they were entirely on a 'pay as you go' basis. Benefit payments like the CB and, more recently, CTC meant we had the bizarre situation of paying in tax to the HMRC with the one hand and getting it back from the DWP with the other.

Nun - I am not slinging mud anywhere but at the Govt. they are the ones trying to divide and conquer - I also don't feel comfortable with any poor little me posturing from those of us in the 'fortunate' position of losing the CB. That is why I am annoyed.

I like to keep the debate sane - 'calm yourself' as the Speaker is telling the House right now.

I absolutely am not in favour of any pay as you go approach to taxation - that is not my point. I just don't see that those on such low incomes that they (rightly) get wtc and Cb and other benefits I hope, are subsidising us.

I am against emotive posturing and there has been alot of that language used by the ConDem govt - I hate it.

WE are being manipulated and that is wrong.

I do not feel manipulated. Most benefits are structured such that 'the rich pay and the poor receive'. Universal benefits mean that the rich receive exactly the same amount as the poor. And to most people - whether we're talking about CB or winter fuel allowances - that seems unfair.

@bigmouthstrikesagain

nooo - my comment wasn't directed at you at all :-) - it was intended to convey that people ought not to be laying guilt trips on you about receiving child benefit.

The government and their pet newspapers have been behaving in a foul manner in their campaign of denigration against benefit recipients of any kind - I think we agree that the public should stop playing their game.

:)

Chil - you talk about 'the rich' and 'the poor' as two clearly distinct groups with no ambiguity - that is not the case and there is also the concept of 'deserving poor' and 'hard working families' being used to sell the divisive policies of the Government.

These are harmful concepts because they are designed to foster resentment between us - so much for the 'big society'!

This government has not, to my knowledge, used the phrase 'the deserving poor' (that was Paxton's phrase in his interview with the Culture Sec.) And the Labour party introduced the concept of the 'hard working family'.

If we take the official definition of 'poor' as being a household income

Do you mean (above a certain income bracket)we should all pay our own way regarding Health services, education, policing, road and house building?

It doesn't make sense to individualise everything of course. Even over a certain income level - because income goes further in some areas and services are cheaper to provide in some areas. Choice is constrianed by where jobs are and many different responsibilities a family/ individual may have.

In a civilised society I welcome re-distribution of wealth - I question the logic of a society where the cost (and value) of raising a child is not recognised and supported it does not have to be through CB btw.

It is the use of these concepts (Tories didn't invent them of course and the New Labour 'project' was also a culprit)and the way they are called upon to represent ideological decisions as necessity.

We pay our taxes for universal things like the education system, healthcare, defence and transport so that everyone in our society has a chance of enjoying a good quality of life. Income support... cash top-ups... is something we traditionally reserve for people with a low or no income, not people with money.

And if you're making the disposable income point about how an above average salary 'goes nowhere' in certain parts of the country. Again, that's not a justification for being entitled to more money.

'Necessity'... is always an ideological/philosophical concept because what is necessary to one person may be unnecessary or even frivolous to another. And what is 'essential' tends to change with the circumstances and with the funding available. Whether the ideological strategy is right or not we can only judge in the future.