To think that this woman is a greedy bitch?

[TheHairyDieter]

Greedy Bitch here

I believe that state handouts should be for people who genuinely need them. There is just not enough money to go around without giving them to people who are well-off. If Child Benefit was means tested, people on low incomes could be given more. That might be enough to get them off the dole and into work.

Honestly, this article had me seething. I hate greed

SHREIK. I think this is happening because Tories neither have the will or the backbone to take money from the rich, they don't want to hurt their own.

Brr none of us are saying that we know your husband - just that like you we thought they were perfect at the point we married them. My experience tells me that it is not really like that. I sincerely hope you get your happy ever after but don't bet on it. With divorce and stress related illness as high as they are chances are that you and your family will experience it - with the finacial implications.

The hypocrisy re those berating somebody on 50K getting CB whilst claiming TC and paying less tax makes me tbh.

no I mean why pay back the deficit if it's helping no one
Presumably because it has to be done?

I think on a macro level it helps us borrow and spend money, but that 'we' is the country. Those sorts of issues are unlikely to affect your regular citizen in a positive way.

Once cuts are made they're made. I don't think once the deficit is down Government will suddenly build some lovely hospitals.

prairie

I am in the middle, and I am fine to lose my CHB

really, so buy less expensive shampoos then

many people in the middle will NOT suffer, really

No, Prarie, I honestly, genuinely have never taken any other benefit my whole life. I never buy expensive clothes, I am careful what I buy foodwise (get the offers, make up huge batches and freeze things). There are many items in my wardrobe or drawers that are on their tenth year and still perfectly fine. I have £X and spend accordingly. I managed on £16k and am fortunate in now earning £17.5k. So I am able to save a little more, hence my holiday in Italy (which was a campsite, by the way).

My hobbies aren't ridiculously expensive and I don't drink much. I don't smoke. I don't have pets. I'd quite like a dog, but my flat is a bit small and, at present, it would probably take my spending to the very edge of break even. So I choose not to have a dog.

I'm not saying your point is not valid, because quite obviously there are places, like London, where everything is much more expensive (although the rural area I am in is certainly more expensive than some places).

And I am not saying there aren't genuine cases, but I also know many people who moan about spending thousands on the cost of train fares from Brighton to London, or Bath to Brighton, who spend three hours a day commuting. But many of them CHOSE to move to Brighton or Bath. Had they stayed nearer London, their transport bill would be less.

And their housing ridiculously high.We can't afford to live in London and dp's family are there.We are as frugal as you and don't have the money for foreign holidays,hobbies,treats etc.We have stuff in our wardrobes 20 years old.......

And I agree Prairieflower these sort of articles claiming to speak for the "squeezed middle" but which are actually about people in the top percent who earn £100k or more also leave me perplexed.

There was a thread recently about an article from the Guardian, also about how poor people felt on the income they earned and I think most people interviewed were on immense salaries too.

I would have felt that the 'squeezed middle' were people in professional careers who earn £40,000 to £60,000 odd, who aren't eligible to claim much by way of benefits or state assistance but are feeling the bite in terms of childcare costs, professional registrations and memberships, taxation, council tax, mortgage, school fees, etc.

I always assume that the reason so many of these articles are about people on £100k plus are that the journalists generally speak to people they know, or have acquaintance with or just are "people like them". So they only have the vaguest idea or interest in what other members of society are about, these articles always tend to be about media types, or those in banking or finance or running their own [successful] business...

Don't see many lifestyle stories about teachers, nurses, archeologists, supermarket manager, etc!

We've always had to pay £££££££ for rent/mortgage.

Even when we had a studio flat.

Do it for every household with an income of over £60,000 and I have no problem. To 'tax' me because of my husbands earnings seems to be taking us back to the 70s. My friends have a joint income of £98,000 and their take home pay is more than double ours every month, oh but they still get child benefit. Fair ??? We have a disposable income every month after mortgage and bills of £850, to cover food, car, insurance, clothes and anything else that comes up. Me and hubbie have worked for every penny we have, never claimed benefits (was brought up by working class parents who believed you worked - I have been a cleaner, waitress chambermaid in my time to pay the bills), and the child benefit was the only thing I got back for paying my taxes - it is in effect my money I'm getting back ! So I will now be 'taxed' as a chattel of my husband - welcome to the misogynist 21st century. Do not understand how this is different to means testing ????

The real problem with a lot of this is that your income doesn't in any sense tell you what a families financial state is. I am on 35K my DH doesn't work but we will not miss child benefit and in fact weren't going to claim until HV badgered us into it. We are in a very stable position financially and will be able to pay off our mortgage in a months time. This is through absolutely no graft on our part but in fact due to insurance payouts on my DFIL's death.

I totally agree with the poster that said that a large part of the problem with the way we view poverty in this country is the association between well off and hard working.

Of course someone working 60 hours a week for 60K a year isn't working harder than someone working 60 hours a week for 24K a year! Both employees may have degrees and have qualified over a period of years of hard work.

For my 35K wage I had to do 2 degrees and a PhD and something like 9 years on the job training...the average working ours are around 60 hours a week.

The entitlement of the high earners is what staggers me...not those that need benefits to survive the shit life has thrown at them...

People are spectacularly missing the point. The whole point of Child Benefit is that it is paid direct to the mother, and is not bass on household income. This, obviously, means that it does go to some people who don't need it. But it does mean that lots of women who have no other money without asking a man for it have a at least a bit of a safety net.

But if a woman is in a financially abusive relationship she would no doubt be denied / made to find it very difficult to access having her own bank account anyway and the money becomes part of the household income.

I don't think that reason alone is enough to warrant continuing to pay higher earners child benefit.

I imagine there are quite a few women out there with partners who earn in excess of £50k a year, and they see very very little of it.

At times like this, if they don't need it they shouldn't get it. There's cuts everywhere happening, effecting people who desperately need the money. Why shouldn't the higher households CB be cut, when the more vulnerable are having to face cuts too?

Where do people get the idea income tax is still "their" money from?

By having children you are contributing to the economy, especially if you are bringing your children up to be valuable and productive members of society. Paying child benefit to middle income families is about recognising the contribution to society and supporting those parents, as although they don't 'need' the benefit as such it may be the difference between a child having extra music lessons or not, or being able to partake in a particular sport outside school. All of which are valuable in context.
For lower income families, the benefit will probably be used other ways, but any family who has based whether they can bring up a child well on how much benefit they can get for that child and cannot do so without it should really have considered if they were in a position to have the children in the first place.
What I don't understand is people who say "why should my taxes pay benefits for other peoples children when I don't have any of my own?" Idiots!

Honeydragon - if you read some press they comment on how low income families are subsidising the 'rich' with their tax. So if that is their tax them mine is mine !!! If this was implemented fairly, for ALL households on more than £60k then I doubt anyone would have a problem. Do you realise that a household with 2 earners on £25k take home over £1000 more a month than my family ? I just want fairness.

Whatever you you may think, it's still unfair on those who have only one income earner earning more than £50k to lose their CB. However, those who have two earners earning £25k each or even those who earn £49k each get to keep theirs!

X posted with mumneedswine! and agree with the point that couples who earn £25k each are better off than us!

Locally, Teaching Assistants are expected to have a degree.

My Husband is a higher earner, and he pays the high earner tax..I support in principle the cut of child benefit, as I will lose all of it.

But personally what pisses me off, is that if I was earning up to 50k as well we would be keeping it.

Also he is not my childs father but acts and thinks/feels that he is
My exh has 3 other kids is self employed cooks the books with clever accounting
earns oodles all through different companies and will keep all of their child benefit.

i feel that if you are going to cut i tfor 50k and above it should be for the whole household income and not just the one, that is very unfair. I am a mature student have paid out thousands for my own training, and will be putting back in to society with my volunteering roles for years to come, I will not be earning a lot of money if ever, but feel like I am being penalised because of my husbands earnings.

But someone has to make a sacrifice, and I am happy too as long as its a level playing field.