Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think that people earning £960 per week don't really need Child Benefit?

689 replies

OldGreyWiffleTest · 21/03/2012 13:39

Well, am I?

OP posts:
StealthPolarBear · 21/03/2012 18:12

Just teasing catgirl I knew what you meant.

Starwisher · 21/03/2012 18:12

London your right.
Also state funding should be removed for education and children's healthcare Hmm

londonone · 21/03/2012 18:13

estya and fluffy - that is exactly my point, people's behaviour isn't influenced by CB, people will carry on having kids if it was taken away tomorrow. Get rid.

soverylucky · 21/03/2012 18:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

statueofliberty · 21/03/2012 18:13

Even thou will effect us I do agree with it, I use it and it does "come in handy" if that makes sense? We don't need it

catgirl1976 · 21/03/2012 18:13

Phew Stealth Grin

londonone · 21/03/2012 18:14

That doesn't follow starwisher - healthcare is universal in this country and hopefully will continue to be, education is of vale to the country as a whole.

WasabiTillyMinto · 21/03/2012 18:15

www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

if you have a 60k income, you have a higher income than around 88% of the population - equivalent to about 53.4 million individuals.

..... so how can the country afford to pay your CB?

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar · 21/03/2012 18:16

Besides, that £80 a week per first child costs the average taxpayer thrupence ha'penny a month (or somesuch).

Withdrawing this universal benefit is an ideological decision, not an economic (by any means) nor even a political one.

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar · 21/03/2012 18:17

£80 a month

HelenBaaBaaBlackSheep · 21/03/2012 18:20

YANBU - why should the majority, who earn less than that, be subsidising them??

There are very good reasons IMO for universal benefits where there is a benefit to society - for instance subsidised transport for the elderly but I don't see that here at all

Agincourt · 21/03/2012 18:20

which soverylucky, is why such an unfair blanket policy about who gets it and who doesn't should be passed in the first place

I am sure you understand that as much as I do

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar · 21/03/2012 18:21

healthcare is universal in this country

For now.

AIBU to think that people earning over £x can pay for their own children's vaccinations?

There IS no universal with this lot. Other than universal twattery.

Agincourt · 21/03/2012 18:21

why should the majority, who earn less than that, be subsidising them??

because on household income as a dual income family they could be earning more or even almost double. That was the whole furore in the first place

soverylucky · 21/03/2012 18:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

londonone · 21/03/2012 18:24

Actually helen the majority aren't subsidising them, The majority don't pay nearly enough in tax to cover the services they get. The vast majority of the population are subsidised by the very rich. It always makes me laugh when people earning 20000 a year are going on about how they pay their taxes and therefore no one is subsidising their benefits when in reality the tax they pay doesn't cover a fraction of what they receive.

Starwisher · 21/03/2012 18:24

Yes London and children are of value to us all

Hecubasdaughter · 21/03/2012 18:25

London often these fail to kick in without CB we would be completely up the creek without a paddle. I am very grateful for CB. It is the only thing they have managed to calculate correctly.

Molehillmountain · 21/03/2012 18:25

Yanbu. I want to say yabu, because we will lose it and are counting the pennies. But it's a different level of penny counting altogether and means cutting out thing which are not bare essentials or even close.

londonone · 21/03/2012 18:25

jenai - vaccinations benefit us all hence it is in the states interest to fund them.

MrFluffy · 21/03/2012 18:26

Yeah screw those sahp with no money of their own and those children whose parents are just scraping by spending their whole wages on food, bills and housing (a lot more of those lately I'd imagine).

It's the principle. Every parent gets it, no shame in claiming it, a little help with the costs of having children, a little safeguard against financial abuse.

HelenBaaBaaBlackSheep · 21/03/2012 18:27

because on household income as a dual income family they could be earning more or even almost double. That was the whole furore in the first place

I totally agree it should go on the household, but we are still talking about a very generous salary compared to most people in this country.

londonone · 21/03/2012 18:27

Yes starwisher but they are going to continue to be produced regardless so why not save x billion pounds.

StealthPolarBear · 21/03/2012 18:27

I think the only argument for keepithis unibersal is if it would cost loads to aminister. I have no problems with it going other than the unfairness - should be based on household income not individual.

Agincourt · 21/03/2012 18:27

I don't have it on pages, but I have scrolled up and read your earlier posts and please don't think i am getting at you, because really that isn't in my nature. I think for me it's just the whole unfairness of it all, and at all levels!

Swipe left for the next trending thread