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

this is just a hate piece. you are meant to get angry and seethe.

job done, Daily Mail.

I think the op would have received less YABUs if it hadn't had such a confrontational title!
But I think YANBU, really (apart from the bitch part!)
It really does seem as though she hasn't a clue. If this were the only benefit the govt were cutting, maybe, just maybe, she would have a point. But let's face it, her family are going to lose out on a lot less proportionately than other benefit recipients who really need the money for food, clothes etc. and anyone who thinks benefit recipients who blow their handouts on fags and booze and don't bother feeding their family adequately are the majority - well, they are equally clueless. Or Daily mail readers...
I am actually seething, at the author but especially at some of these responses. It's a drop in the ocean for this family.

"seeker I do understand. But I don't agree that the vast majority of high earning families where the man is not abusive should get it."

So what's the solution? Frankly, I would rather a few people who shouldn't get it get it than one woman who needs it desperately doesn't. But it's devil tqke the hindmost at the moment. Very unpleasant.

its annoyes me that i too will be in the same bracket as the woman in the fm, fortunately we can change our accounts so i can still get it.

i stand up and proudly say im a greedy bitch

I don't know. But unlike other cuts the govt is making, this is at least one that won't leave the majority of the people it affects in poverty

And seeker, do you think it's that sort of ratio? Of families who will lose it, a few will be OK to one where the mother will lose the only cash she can get her hands on?

shriiek :But why does that mean she should get it back?

100k gross
65k net
Tax man and NI = total 35k

Monthly deductions 3k pm
Child benefit (one child) £67 pm

Yes she's really taking it back isn't she?

Read up to page 2. I'm with seeker

thats a good point shreiik but there is no way to proove this.

I honestly can't believe she needs the CB, with a household income like that do they even notice it?

I do think CB should be means tested as it would save an awful lot if money, that said if you are entitled to it I can see why you'd be pissed off it suddenly you weren't.

Makes me feel better about claiming it on our joint income of around £30k though, we're not on the breadline but it does help a lot.

My question still stands Kitty. I'm not stupid, I do realise she's not getting it all back and I never implied that. But she pays taxes, as does everyone. Presumably she believes taxes are a good thing to pay to live in the society she lives in. Why does paying tax of an amount over an arbitrary £X entitle you to claim a benefit of £X?
If she just wants "something" back, make it means tested on a sliding scale with 10p per month as the minimum.

karma

"Secondly, this is divide and rule by the government and people like you are too stupid to see it. CB makes everyone feel invested in the idea of a benefits system. Once you start excluding the 'wealthy' they begin to feel no association with the system and therefore lose sympathy when the poor and weaker members of society then have their benefits further cut. Which is the intention of a Tory government. This is is the thin end of the wedge.

Thirdly, the name of CB was changed from Family Allowance - that was no accident. It was intended as a tax relief, in recognition that raising children is both expensive and of long term benefit to the state. I making it a benefit, the government just made it easier to cut."

Well said. I am too cross with all the petty jealousy to even say what I mean about this.

or she could accepot that she gets other things in return for her taxes
Wanting a small amount of cash in return for the tax she pays is completely illogical

YABU. Why are her kids any less worthy just because she has worked hard and forged a career. She is already paying a considerable amount of tax and NI so that families who have never worked can continue to get child benefit. I actually think this is discrimination against her children and all those whose children will be losing out. The benefit is for the children, not for her and her husband, so effectively, the government is punishing her children because she works hard.

People might say, "she doesn't need child benefit if she is earning £££". You could also say that nobody needs to have 3, 4, 5, 6 etc children that they cannot afford, especially when they are on benefits. I think this should remain universal, otherwise it just sends a message that some children are considered more worthy than others, even if their predicament has been caused by their parents. It also discourages hard work and progress since it is effectively a tax on success. If we are "all in it together" then everyone should either get cb or everyone should lose it.

They could make cuts in other areas such as stop cb being sent to children living outside the UK or cut foreign aid which is so often unneeded or misspent. But no. Better to punish the productive. No wonder this country is up shit creek.

I earn £9000 pa, Dh earns £24000 pa. we have one child.
We lost all our tax credits (about £600 pa) with these welfare 'reforms' this lovely govt are bringing in. Yet I'm not complaining about that. I feel lucky to still be on receipt of child benefit, tbh. We aren't well off at all but we manage, and there are people who are a lot more in need. And yes, dh works very hard for his money (as do I, albeit part time)- I hate the argument 'but I work hard for my fortune' as though people on less are lazy bastards!

but lots pay no tax and get lots back.

go figure.

Is there anywhere (and I realise this would be a hugely politically sensitive thing to publish) a document showing the different sectors of society and how they have been affected by the cuts this government have (rightly or wrongly) introduced. Because I cannot believe that families on £50k will be anywhere near the worst affected. But they are the sort that get to write articles in newspapers.

"MrsBucketxx Thu 01-Nov-12 08:34:30
but lots pay no tax and get lots back.

go figure. "

Separate argument. The answer is not that if you pay tax you should get an arbitrary amount back.

There is another thread on at the moment, saying that SAHP should continue to claim, because of the home responsibilities protection.

I think the person claiming CB gets the choice to either give up CB or not. If they choose to keep claiming, then the higher earner has to pay it back in tax - I don't think it is the higher earner who gets the final say in whether CB is claimed or not.

I'm not certain of the legalities of all this - how can you have one person pay tax on something that he or she has no legal right to say yes or no to claiming?

I also read somewhere that it might contravene European law because it puts British people at a disadvantage to their co workers, who might be claiming CB here, but paying income tax back in their own countries, where a British government couldn't claw back the CB payment through taxation.

Orwellian, no one is saying her kids are less worthy. Money that the govt pays to the family is not based on the worth of the children. But cuts need to be made and these are children who are very unlikely to suffer if this amount is not paid to their parents in benefit.

Yes karma, that would be a good solution actually, but as you say raises qite a few arguments about the legalities of it, and also the practicalities

woff - "benefit was originally designed to give mother's some autonomy from heir husband's income so that they could provide for their children. No, it wasn't. It was brought in following World War II to encourage repopulation following the loss of so many men during the war. It should probably have been stopped by the late-1950s. It is only later that other arguments for what child benefit/family allowance was introduced for became 'accepted'

My parents couldn't afford more than one child, so they stopped at one. This was in 1974. I couldn't go to university in 1992 because my parents couldn't afford it, you couldn't get a grant and student loans didn't exist.

Of course this article is typical DM. It even included the phrase that this is the one benefit everyone in society gets. Um, no they don't. What about the million or so people (not pensioners) who either chose or through medical circumstance couldn't/didn't have children? They pay their tax and NI, they may work hard, may work the same hours and earn the same money as the writer of the article.

But I do think the time has now come to redress the balance. Having children is a choice. There must be more responsibility, something that seems to be lacking so much nowadays. Most people who don't have kids are happy to subsidise those that do, to an extent, because some of those kids will be their doctors and nurses when they are older. That is only right and proper in a decent society. But it is completely unacceptable to just universally give benefit to everyone who has children regardless of their income and number of children.

I don't think means testing is necessarily the best way. Make it universal to all for the first two children regardless of income. Any more after that, and it's 100% your responsibility.

I thought she was being ironic when I first started reading the article.

We too are losing this allowance, and I think it is correct that we should. My husband and I earn enough money to look after ourselves, if we have to give up the odd luxury, then lucky us that we can afford them in the first place.

Yes we have worked hard to earn our money, but we were fortunate that we had the ability and family support to enable us to get good jobs. Not everyone is that lucky, and many people work very hard for a lot less reward.

I am happy for my taxes to help other people who need the money. What a bizarre world we live in!

"Cat98 Thu 01-Nov-12 08:34:27
I earn £9000 pa, Dh earns £24000 pa. we have one child.
We lost all our tax credits (about £600 pa) with these welfare 'reforms' "

I wonder whether there were threads saying that was unfair?