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

Oh and having spoken to a civil servant friend they are anticipating this whole exercise costing in admin more than it will save. So it's unfair, expensive and will cost the Tories a lot of votes. Well done Mr Cameron, what a brilliant idea.

getwiththeprogramme- the NHS is not funded out of National Insurance and is not different to other welfare issues in this sense. National Insurance may appear to be insurance, due to its name, but its a tax- pure and simple. NI goes into the same pot as other taxes. NI is not ring-fenced for the NHS or other welfare benefits. Taxpayers today pay for the NHS (in the same way they pay for lots of other things)- NI is not "invested" for the future in the same way a typical insurance scheme works.

Just to make myself feel even worse, a household with 2 wage earners of £50k, and so keeping their child benefit, earn £3,000 A MONTH more than us. Oh we are so not all in this together.

I haven't read any of this thread, I'll be back later when I have more time (ie not at work!), but just wanted to say OP that YANBU and this woman is beyond selfish.

I want to read the rest of the thread before I comment more, just in case!

I will be losing my CB and I am pissed off about it. It does make a difference to our finances. And it does annoy me that two working parents could earn £49k each and still get. The argument they have childcare to pay so it is fair is erroneous- they also have two tax free allowances so take home more of their pay than a single worker earning the same amount.

Blimey! Job done DM. This thread shows us exactly how the government is going to rule. Divide and conquer. And CB is only the start. Yeah means testing folks - that's how you and me will be judged. Unless you own a big corporation and can afford a tricksy accountant. Or can rely on a trust fund or title coming your way in old age. Then you don't need to care about this. I will lose out on CB and me and my family will be fine. That doesn't mean everyone will be and if I moan it's not for me - it's for the principle. Cos someone has to have them and clearly this government is not bothered about getting the uber rich to pay their dues - just stop the rest from getting there and having to share.

I don't mind means testing - that would be fair !!! This is not.

mumsneedwine (love the name)

I was referring to people who say "I don't want my money spent on...", they don't have a choice. It is law to pay tax. It is not against the Law to exploit deliberate loopholes for the massively rich, and this is not fair.

Those that, when a majority of people are having an interesting discussion about the removal of benefits from those that that need them, where the line should be drawn and what current actions implicate for our futures, come along and say I don't want MY money to pay for XYZ.

I 'd like to see them refuse .

I don't think Middle Earners are subsidising the wealthy corporations, the Middle Earners are an easy source of tax. The Super rich are not, and are shafting every single earner that pays tax, and everyone that relies on the state, which in some way is everyone.

The very nature of taxation is that some of it will go some where you'd rather it didn't.

Incidentialy, I was interviewed in the Summer about this and I commented that my real concern was the disability cuts, and that I felt such aggressive and harmful cuts had deliberately occurred along side the CB removal to ensure people were sidetracked by a larger issue. They weren't interested in that all so I declined to continue.

Honey, I take your points entirely and totally agree about disability cuts being brought in sneakily. I suppose I am just asking for a fair system, where people are treated equally. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!

Isabelle 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!

I covered this slightly earlier on. I am unable to have children. There are at least a million non-pensioners out there who either can't have or have chosen not to have children. Yes, some of these people feel they shouldn't pay anything for your children but MOST do feel it right and proper to pay our bit towards educating your children as some of them will be our doctors and nurses and the like. We need a certain birth rate to continue the species (although as the population of the world has more than doubled in 50 years, that's questionable in certain parts of the globe).

But this does not mean we should happily accept to pay for ALL your children under any circumstances. Two, to my mind, is sufficient. If you want more than two, I think it only fair you take that entire burden on yourself UNLESS fate later needs to the welfare state to intervene because you NEED it.

My parents could only afford me. So they didn't have any more.

Catholic teaching is against contraception, so Catholic families keep churning them out. Why the hell should I pay for all of them? Paying for some, yes, no problem.

The welfare state was set up to help those who NEED it. Not to help every single parent every time they want (as opposed to need) a child ad infinitum. And, I repeat, this particular benefit was originally established to help repopulate the country after World War Two, not to give women a direct bit of money as was mentioned earlier.

Society does not NEED each couple to produce more than two children. So why not stop the benefit after two? Far fairer than any sort of means testing.

Agreed Voice limiting child benefit to multiple children could be a way forward, maybe some way of discouraging the feckless to have less of them and not discouraging more responsible families from having children at all.

I think you'll find the largest birth rate in this country is amongst Muslims not Catholics , they are also the group most likely to be unemployed ( three times moreso than white Britons).

Voice, the children are the ones to suffer though.

This idea of limiting family money will effect the children, it is not their fault that their parents had them.

I don't believe CB should be limited to 2 children to families who currently have 3 or more right now, but it could be done for future children. If a family is so irresponsible that they are willing to keep on having children which they can't afford, then they are not likely to be the type of people who will spend the extra money on their children anyway. Of course, people make mistakes, but this won't be a huge percentage of people anyway.

The number of families on benefits ONLY are around 35000, cutting their benefits will make little difference to the country's finances.

Posie I don't buy that excuse, which is something Epstein said in her ludicrous piece of prose. No, it isn't their fault their parents had them. But anyone who has seen The Jeremy Kyle Show knows there are plenty of parents who keep producing and shouldn't because they play the system and get their child benefits, housing benefits etc etc. Those poor kids often stand no chance and it is a vicious circle.

But by that token, nothing will change. We should just keep pouring benefits out to all and sundry just because "it's not their fault"??? No, we should find a better way to improve the lot of those that DO need it - and an obvious way is to stop giving it those those who absolutely do not need assistance from the state and rewarding feckless parents every time they breed.

YABU, especially for calling her a greedy bitch. Her household will be paying huge amounts of tax and get a small potion back through child benefit.

Still punishing the children for the mistakes of the parents. How about investing more in education and inspiring people to work for a living wage rather than being on benefits.

TBH I'd rather a few feckless getting more than they deserve (which is still fuck all in the grand scheme of things) than seeing children go hungry.

So many nasty, vindictive, small minded cruel posts on here.

Does nobody ever think, when they look at someone less fortunate than themselves "There but for fortune......."?

Indeed Seeker, a lot of people are blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are really only one unexpected disaster away from being a benefits 'scrounger' themselves.

seeker. When I read some posts on here a voice in my head says "Ah, that's how the Tories got in"

PosieParker - your stats make little sense - its illogical to say Muslims are more like to be unemployed than White Brits as many people are all three, it's not comparing like with like.

Using only religious stats, Muslim people (alongside Jewish people compared to size of population) of all colours and nationalities are more like to be self-employed and creating jobs than other religious groups.