to think that child benefit cuts are

[mumsfretter]

understandable even though we personally lose as a family, again! However, I resent people who are much much richer than us getting winter fuel allowance still.

Aibu that the two benefits should have been cut together on the same basis or not at all.

Child benefit should not exist. Why the hell should government pay for you to have a child? You choose to have a child, so you pay for it

OAPs seem to have escaped all the cuts. Families are taking the big hit

YANBU although we lose out as well but it makes me cross that a couple could have a combined income of more than we earn and still get it - ditto unfairness if the fuel allowance. Benefits should be for those in real need.

I agree re winter fuel payment

What about people who choose to have children and then are left by their partners and/or get made redundadnt. It should be means tested but not abolished.

My ExH abandoned us, leaving me to work my backside off whilst he swans about contributing a pittance. So thanks for the fucking political analysis, Reky.

Since you ask, I think most resentments are wrong, so YABU. That includes Reky's dig, btw.

The government should subsidise children because children are the people who will be wiping your bottom 40 years hence, and tempted to slap you around in your unreasonable dementia. The people who will decide not to be criminals, to instead catch criminals, to take our rubbish away and make our food safe (etc.). It's in everyone's interests for today's children to be nice sane well-informed future adults.

Old people need to kept warm or they die. Fact. If I had my way, anyone earning over 30k would not get CB. Ours buys food, without it we would struggle, despite both working. Some people do actually need it.

child benefit shouldn't exist?

There is a school of thought that everyone should get a personal tax allowance.

Anyone who earns money gets a personal allowance IRO £6000, but a non-working spouse or any children get nothing unless they have personal unearned income (unlikely for most), despite basic costs to the family unit.

In the old days, there was the married person's allowance meaning that the non-working spouse was recognised withing the taxation system, along with child benefit meaning that children were recognised.

Really, if you don't think children should have an allowance (via child benefit), then you should also be in favour of losing the personal allowance, and support taxation on all your income.

Old people tend to vote more often than the younger generation and many vote Tory, so Call Me Dave needs to keep them sweet, hence no reduction in winter fuel payments or state pensions.

"Child benefit should not exist."
As I recall CB came into existence at a time when the man worked and the woman didn't (could be legally fired on marriage); and it was recognised that the wage didn't necessarily make it all the way to the home to pay for food/rent etc, being spent on beer , fags and the bookies. So, tax the wage and redistribute it to the wife, who was trusted to spend it on the children.

So, yes Reky, child benefit should not exist. But as long as households like the one I describe above exists, I am glad that it does. And you don't have to be on MN long to realise that they do exist, even if the bookies has been exchanged for the XBox etc.

Mmmm yes Reky, they should bring back workhouses for those feckless losers who can't support their children.

yanbu in a way because rich families shouldn't get state benefits. but the way it's worked out is bonkers - if 1 person earns 50k and the other nothing then it's cut, but if both earn 49k they still get it. it should be on household income.

winter fuel allowance should be cut for the rich too, of course.

Happy to lose CB if we are returning to a tax situation where my tax free allowance is transferable to my husband. If we are to be considered a unit for benefits we should be considered a unit for tax.

Reky, seriously you are having a laugh aren't you?
Not everyone is fortunate enough to get high wages or go without circumstancial change!

I think everyone should get child benefit, it used to be for every child, why should it change now!

And it should be remembered that even in rich households, financial abuse exists. Sometimes CB can be the only money the SAHP can control. I am more than happy for tax to cover this most necessary of redistributions.

And for the majority of households, surely it's swings and roundabouts?

Maybe someone could tell me why the current political structures allow my working, well-paid feckless ExH not to properly support his own children?

Disabled people need to be kept warm, but the Governement don't give a flying fuck about is! Some of us face losing our DLA, which to some people is over £100 a week, and it is getting no publicity what so ever!

Exactly LineRunner, i don't see why these so called men can get way with not paying for their own children yet the gov wants to stop cb for single mothers on over 50k but couples earning that much each can still recieve it-How on earth is that FAIR??

I do think that if CB is to be means tested (in a very unfair fashion) then I think the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes should also be means tested.

I know of quite a few pensioners on a final salary pension of £30k and no mortgage. Why the hell should I subsidise their lifestyle?

If you can't afford a child, then you shouldn't have one. It's simple.

I feel the same as stargirl TBH. DH is a higher-rate tax-payer, but I only earn about £10k, so have plenty of unused lower tax allowance.

On the plus side this whole situation has pissed us off that much that DH is now setting himself up as a limited company, thereby drastically reducing the amount he pays in tax/NI. (He's a contractor currently working under an umbrella company).

What shall I do with them, then, Reky? Kill them?

Yes Reky, you have all the answers- what shall we do with the children already created?

No linerunner give them to someone who can afford them of cource