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

The Daily Mail is a massive troll.

Why even bother arguing over its inflammatory drivel?

If we allow more people to fall into poverty it will cost us much more in the end, say over 50 years. The impact on our health system and possible rises in crime make it a fools errand to further cripple the poor.

"There's also no denying the fact that it makes no sense to apply the cut to family with one £50k earner, but not to a family with 2 x £49k earners."

In most two worker households they pay much more than £120 per month on work expenses (assuming 2 dc worth of cb). Transport, clothing, childcare. Plus, they have worked probably 80 hours plus to earn that money. A one worker household could, in theory earn £120 a month by the second person doing something for just a few hours per month. The two worker house does not have that option.

How about we actually stop people procreating after 2 children? Tie their tubes and give them the snip. Then there will be enough money to go round, no child poverty, a decent pension for all, no problems in the NHS, free childcare for all working parents etc and piss off the Catholics hugely.

Nah, too radical. Let's just scrap the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners and introduce Universal Doughnut Benefit instead.

A couple with kids who both earn 49K has nowhere near twice as much money as a couple with kids with one person earning 50K.

Because of child care init.

The special case should be made for single parent families because they have childcare costs AND only one income.

But IMHO the limit being per person is not far off reasonable.

so is it also too radical to suggest that if you want to claim child benefit then you have to demonstrate you are using an effective contraceptive method?

ie have a coil or implant or snip etc?

TBH I don't think anyone should have CB cut, we can allow people (like people who choose clever accounting) to decide can't we? I mean if it's okay for some people to choose to obey the letter of the law to pay their fair share or use the loopholes to avoid why can't we all do this? Or can we not trust the middles to decide, unlike the rich?

pmsl brrbrr @ at everyone fucking off to get their own donuts.

Oh for gods sake

Do I like my £134 per month, hell yeh
will I miss it, hell yes!
can I survive without it, yes. less treats, but yes

then why in the middle of a recession so we give money to people that dont actually need it????

I dont think people realise how bloody lucky so many of us are
we have healthcare, education, we are not at war, we have good human rights

get.a.grip

Can I ask those who want people over £50k to lose CB is they shop on Amazon, in Starbucks or have Vodaphone? Do they buy Take That or Gary Barlow's music?

daughter and son in law will lose child benefit for their baby. that's fine, they haven't complained. they are finding things tight at the moment but are not 'in need' in the way that many families are.

I think CB should remain a universal benefit. The government will save a minuscule amount of money by cutting it to higher earners, and it will give those higher earners less of a stake in the welfare system. I very much doubt that the woman who wrote the article will suffer financially from losing CB - she is far wealthier than at least 95% of the population - but I agree with her in principle.

" PosieParker

Can I ask those who want people over £50k to lose CB is they shop on Amazon, in Starbucks or have Vodaphone?Do they buy Take That or Gary Barlow's music?"

Amazon yes. No to rest

what a strange question posie!!!!

yes amazon, unfortunately yes to starbucks and vodafone and NOOOOO to gary B

I don't earn over £50k. I do sometimes shop on Amazon. I never buy from Starbucks and my PAYG mobile is EE (ex Orange). I have never bought any of Take That or Gary Barlow's music.

I agree posie that there are tax loopholes for corporates that need sorting out. But that doesn't necessarily mean that child benefit should be permanently exempt from change either and we are in a very, very different world now than when it was introduced. Welfare and benefits should be about NEED and necessity.

I still think cap it at 2 children for everyone is probably the fairest solution but agree you will never please all of the people all of the time.

Unless you give them doughn...

The thing is most families live to their means and to suddenly remove it is out of order.
There seems to be little initiative for families to work in some cases especially when it seems some work hard, pay a bundle load of tax and see others living it up.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have a benefits system but just that it shouldn't be so easy to stay on it and should be easier to get back into work especially with childcare costs.
I think they should look at those middle families who pay full childcare but means they are only working for pennies once child care is paid

It's just when we're in favour of cutting people's benefits I think we should look inward as to what support we are lending to people who are stealing from our pockets.

It is the principle that's at stake. Whether people can afford to lose CB or not is irrelevant.

It's like taking pocket money off your children because you've only been paid a fraction of your wages and you are too frightened to tackle your boss about it.

When Government, of any flavour, start tackling major issues of revenue loss whether it be avoidance of corporation tax or funding bankers, then and only then will I start to consider whether my rich neighbour can afford to do without her child benefit. Until then I think it should remain universal

voice the problem with capping it at 2 kids is that sometimes kids happen by accident or your circumstances change - like being made redundant. So through relatively little fault of your own you could have had a number of children you were confident you could support and then find you couldn't.

But I do think it would be reasonable to say you can only claim benefit for the kids you have if you are provably not trying to have more. Hence making contraceptive use a determining factor in claiming child benefit.

I like to think it's similar to having to demonstrate you are looking for work in order to get JSA.

"Pocket money" seriously!

SHRIIIEEEKPoolingBearBlood Thu 01-Nov-12 08:54:24
So, people who think it should continue to be paid universally, who should make up the shortfall?

Easy. Cut payments to the useless and corrupt EU. Or cut foreign aid to places like India (which doesn't want our help and has a space programme), or better yet, bloody well stop the tax loopholes that allow Starbucks, ebay, Google etc to pay hardly any tax on profits made in the UK. They are going after the easy target - middle class families who won't kick up too much of a fuss and are the backbone of the economy and already pay more than enough tax and NI. Or they could just limit all child benefits to 2 kids, so if you want more, you pay for them. Seems fairer than only targeting the children of certain families.

Were the people who are in opposition to this change also in opposition to the many cuts that have been brought in which have affected people who earn a lot less than 50k?

"making contraceptive use a determining factor in claiming child benefit."

That's a terrible idea, I'm shocked actually that anyone could think it was feasible!

But it is not targetting the children. It is a benefit paid to families with children. Removing it where the family earns over 50k should not plunge te children into poverty.

Twisty twisty daily mail shite.

It's probably cost them more to try and cap it than just paying it to bloody everyone in the first place.