to think that child benefit changes to those on over 60k is genius?

[patsara]

And a bloody good idea? I mean those on under this aren't going to have sympathy and the REALLY rich and powerful? Well, it's nothing to them.

It's also really funny to hear stories of couples trying to think of ways to say they're not a family. So you're living with a man who is the father of your child but you're not a family? Riii-ght...

I think people should just forget subterfuge and suck it up. I earn 100k a year and losing it will mean nothing to me. Rather it went to feed some REALLY poor kid myself.

Prarieflower £7.20 is not the minimum wage (believe it or not, THAT is even less). I appreciate your point, I really do.

But Somebody on a higher wage may also have hugely bigger living expenses and costs that's my point. Lifestyle choices. You may not like it but that's what they are!

Err no they're not when you have to live in a certain area and pay £££££ for not a lot,pay ££££££ for travel to work etc.When you don't have holidays,phones or Sky such as the poster below has outlined what are the choices??Do tell!

Patsara

Your op mentioned 'really poor' kid, I'd love to know your definition, in terms of household income.

not when you have to live in a certain area hang on we don't live in a communist state! You do not HAVE to live in any area at all. You choose to live in an area.

I could move 15 mins up the train line and save myself about £500k on housing (that's a lot of mortgage), but my choice is to suck up the cost, eat lots of beans and lentils, shop in charity shops and live here.

You are making choices too.

I love the idea that we can all move to cheaper areas to save housing costs. Quite aside from the fact that many people will be faced with a bill of thousands immediately on moving, whatever you save in housing by moving to a cheaper area will be recouped - sometimes more so - in increased commuting costs.

So you could move to a cheaper area and find the same work in that area. Except for many people their field of work isn't available elsewhere in a cheaper part of the world. And on the rare occasions when it is, the salary is often lower as a result of being in a cheaper part of the world.

Actually I think it is genius from the Treasuries point of view because they can slowly start getting rid of it - something they've wanted to do for years apparently ? well that what I?ve read in press.

Start with high earns - bring the levels slowly down or not raise it with inflation - start talk of capping it for two DC at other end or for all- few years and few and fewer people will claim it and then SAHP will be less informed about claiming it to get their Home protection Insurance for their state pensions - so long term saving their as well.

Fact the way they are doing it is very unfair, it will currently save no money and at time when many families with DC are struggling misses the long term point.

The savings are paltry in the scheme of things so there must be an ulterior motive.

Jins, there's definitely an ulterior motive. I think it's all a bit sinister and calculating TBH .

People are restricted to areas because of work. Sorry but that's a fact.

Jins, there are of course ulterior motives.

Anyone remember in the '80's when the interest rates hiked. People were made homeless overnight. Same sneery shit then ... "well you were living beyond your means and didn't deserve a 2 bed semi when we have to rent" was around then.

And it's hard. Bloody hard when lose everything. And you claw your way back and there is ALWAYS some bastard who doesn't want you to have it, or wants to take it away. And do you know what, it's never people on their uppers who think like this. Is the privilged, entitled and wealthy bastards that don't want you to have it, and they are the ones who make sure it's taken away, so they don't have to lose theirs.

That's not even politics. Its life. And I despise people who who have these attitudes because they are normally he pretenders and the deluded and they think the know, but they don't.

of course there is an ulterior motive and partly it's a smoke screen because of all the other cuts they are making

the thing that annoys me the most is that before they got voted into power DC made a huge deal about 'traditional families' and volunteering and all the rest of it and these cuts directly affect the people he wanted the vote off initially and more fool them for believing him really (sorry)

I agree with all of that honeydragon

The same thing happened when they introduced fees for university. I remember all the cries of "Well why should we pay for these students?" Fees now at 9k and students starting working life with debts that equal many mortgages.

This is in the same vein. It's the start of a massive erosion of the welfare state and we should all be resisting it. Better a few get a benefit they don't need now than have the majority of families lose it over the next 15 years or so.

Too much sneery shit and not enough thought about where this will end up frankly

Too much sneery shit and not enough thought about where this will end up frankly

^ That, exactly that.

Patsara if you think this is genius and you seem to think one person earning £60K gross earns alot when actually they don't as they pay 40% tax on their earnings, pay all the bills, plus tax, insurance and fuel not to mention all the rest for their car as well as food food the family.

This is what my dh earns as he has slogged his way up to middle management, I work as a casual catering assistant so work is not always there. Have resigned as a childminder as it is getting harder and harder to compete with nurseries getting government funding (which cms don't get unless you are accredited and you have to jump through hoops to get that). Am going to have to wait until my youngest starts high school next year to apply for full-time work as we get no child tax credits and next year our CB is being taken off us when we will need it more than ever for hign shool uniform, shoes, trainers, football boots and school lunches as again we get no help from this government even though we work as hard as anyone else, why the hell shouldn't we get something back????!!!!!!!

Oh and re uni many of the kids in the same bracket won't even be able to go to uni as they won't qualify for the maximum loans for living expenses.

3dc-no spare cash = no uni

The poor are covered, ditto the rich but the middle quite frankly are left high and dry!

Having said that the middle are probably stuffed re uni anyway as unis are trying to attract more from poor backgrounds,the rich go to private schools so re actually getting into uni the middle kids are going to find it a lot tougher!!!!!

I can see both sides as I wouldn't be pleased to lose it if it affected me because I would have budgeted taking it into consideration and now gone! But on the other hand £60,000 is a very good salary by most people's estimation and the only place it wouldn't be considered much is in London because of house prices and rents. That's as far as I can see it. I think the student loans thing is a far more serious cut.

Errr London isn't the only £££££ place to rent or buy.Doubt dp and I could buy our studio flat in Bath now let alone a 3 or 4 bed house.

But I don't think the answer is for the state to subsidise inflated house prices. Most people who bought say 15 years ago could hardly afford their houses now. I wouldn't mind moving but the jump is huge so we won't.

Well good for you that you can afford it. Whilst I agree £60K sounds a lot of money but everyones circumstances are different. If you live in the North on £60, its probably a very good salary, however £60K in the south east, isnt that much (I know its a hell of a lot more than £20K!)

Also it is completely unfair. It should be on the household income, not one persons. As has been said time and time again, you could get one family where one parent earns £60 and all the CB is gone, or two parents both earning £49K they keep it.

And the money its really gong to save isn't much at all. They'd be better off getting companies top pay their tax and closing loopholes that allow the rich to not pay their taxes - but they won't

But the state subsidises salaries with TCs sooooooo....

Sweet kitty its a benefit. The title of it is a bit of a giveaway dont you think?!

Hmmm So its ok when high earners opt out of overtime so they can keep their Child Benefit but when someone in a low paid job does the same by opting out of overtime (and a lot of overtime is intermittent in lower waged jobs causing backlogs in tax credit paperwork) to keep their working tax credits they are viewed as scroungers by some in society and a lot in the media. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Did we establish/confirm that the Op was a troll, who has since left?

OP - how breathtakingly arrogant of you to assume that no one losing their CB will miss it or should complain about losing it:
You don't say how many DC you have, but let's assume it's two. You will lose £1752 pa which is 1.75% of your salary. Someone with 3 children on a salary of £60K is losing 4.16% of theirs.
I imagine if your employer said they were reducing your salary by 4% overnight, you would be somewhat pissed off and you might then!

Darkesteyes - it used to be called Family Allowance then became child benefit. But what's a name eh? Same way Tax Credits have nothing to do with Tax. Whatever it is it's going anyway.