Jump to content

Child Support ( Non Bollitics ideally)


tonyh29
 Share

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed cut In Child benefit moneyfrom 2013  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed cut In Child benefit moneyfrom 2013

    • Yes
      29
    • No
      10


Recommended Posts

Thought I'd start a separate thread for this as it might be quite interesting to see how people feel about the proposed cuts in 2013

Various polls are saying 83% of the public back the governments cuts ... another thread in VT seems to suggest that the figure is more like 2% !!

Trying to look past the dual income of 40k keep v the single income of £45k lose it argument and just the principal behind it

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed cut In Child benefit money from 2013 ?

On a sort of related issue , the debate on the radio this morning had some yogurt knitter on it and when it came to capping Child benefit she came up with the argument that some people have lots of children on religious grounds and shouldn't be penalised .... Now maybe she meant people that don't believe in birth control but other than priests ensuring the supply doesn't run out , does anyone know of any valid religious reason for having loads of children ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you ask if you agree with the proposed cut, whilst asking people to ignore a huge aspect of it?

Surely it'd be better to ask if you agree with the principle of cutting child benefit for high earners, rather than what's proposed, because the dual vs single earner aspect is a huge part of what's proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree with the theory of it but then the idea of two parents earning £40k per year still getting something is a bit daft, should have been based on household income rather than an individual wage IMO

thats my brief understanding anyway because like most things i read samantha 23 from manchester's opinion on it saw that it didnt effect me and moved on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with those over a certain income level not receiving cash benefits (and them being tapered away so as not to provide a spectacularly bizarre disincentive at that income level).

I don't agree with slipshod policy making.

I am, therefore, not taking part in your 'survey'. :winkold:

p.s. You could have waited until after the CSR to see if this mooted option of capping it at 16 occurs (I'm assuming that there would need to still be a provision for those in full time education even if they did do that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because the dual vs single earner aspect is a huge part of what's proposed.

they have a couple of years to work it out so I'm sure they will find a way to buy back some votes

You could have waited until after the CSR to see if this mooted option of capping it at 16 occurs

I'd expect that to push the Yes vote higher still

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could have waited until after the CSR to see if this mooted option of capping it at 16 occurs

I'd expect that to push the Yes vote higher still

Why?

Are we still not due to have the school leaving age increased to 18 in 2013?

If so then withdrawing child benefit for those aged 16-18 (without the proviso mentioned above) would be another example of slipshod policy making, wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does anyone know of any valid religious reason for having loads of children ?

so what you are saying is that we should follow the China example of allowing only a certain amount of kids?

What about people who have multiple births? As the "average" is 2 should anyone who has triplets be forced to "dispose" of one?

As Snowy rightly says the questions is so flawed its meaningless and putting a poll with it is serves no purpose

I would say that it could be linked to Income Tax but we all know that there are a certain group of people who treat tax avoidance as some sort of privilege

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

I thought the idea of benefits was to give a little assistance to those who need it. To say that family A with a household income of £45k and 3 kids can't have them but family B with a household income of £80k and 3 kids can is not fair and not right.

I undestand that the gov't need to get money where they can, but if they're going to take something on like this they need to do it properly, fairly and not this half arsed idea they've come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what you are saying is that we should follow the China example of allowing only a certain amount of kids?

where have i said that ?

As the "average" is 2 should anyone who has triplets be forced to "dispose" of one?

where have i said that ?

I asked for "Valid religious reasons" for having lots of children , as that was the argument put forward by the lady on the radio .. i.e does it actually state in the Bible /Koran or whatever ..Thou shall breed like rabbits ?

would say that it could be linked to Income Tax

lets say with BA you all pay £100 regardless of whether or not you had luggage , used a check in counter , what you eat / drink on the plane etc

then with Ryan air ..you all pay £45 .. however if you want to check in lugagge you pay £10 , then £5 to use the counter , £5 for your drink meal etc ...

much as i hate Ryan air etc , overall which system is the fairer one ?

So if you link it to income tax , could someone without children also expect a rebate ?

but we all know that there are a certain group of people who treat tax avoidance as some sort of privilege

yes but enough about labour Non doms , i was trying to keep this thread free of party political broadcasts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that family A with a household income of £45k and 3 kids can't have them but family B with a household income of £80k and 3 kids can is not fair and not right.

where has anyone said they can't have them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

To say that family A with a household income of £45k and 3 kids can't have them but family B with a household income of £80k and 3 kids can is not fair and not right.

where has anyone said they can't have them ?

here

Earlier this week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced plans to axe child benefits for higher rate taxpayers.

The cuts, to be introduced in 2013, mean that the 1.2 million people who live in households where someone earns more than £44,000 a year will lose their child benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I don't understand the question. Are we being asked to vote whether we think the principle of not giving money to rich people (unless there's two of them, in which case we should give them money) is a fair one? Or the prinicple that you give some money to a less rich person, but then if they get a small payrise, you take a big sum off them? is fair

Or is it more of a question as to whether we approve of the idea of someone like Osbourne, having a thought of his own, and then deciding to just make it a policy. I mean bless him for trying and all that, but shouldn't we perhaps vote for him to be put somewhere safe, where an economically literate grown up from the treasury staff can stop his fantasies from getting out of hand, and thereby save a load of embarrasment all round? That would seem the fairest thing, all in all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that family A with a household income of £45k and 3 kids can't have them but family B with a household income of £80k and 3 kids can is not fair and not right.

where has anyone said they can't have them ?

here

Earlier this week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced plans to axe child benefits for higher rate taxpayers.

The cuts, to be introduced in 2013, mean that the 1.2 million people who live in households where someone earns more than £44,000 a year will lose their child benefits.

where does that say they can't have children though ? or did you mean the "money" rather than "children " and I've just misunderstood the intent of your post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

I agree that a household with an income in the region of £44k does not need child benefits and should not be getting them.

I disagree with the utterly ridiculous way they're trying to implement it on the individual and not household income, which despite you asking is not possible to ignore in any debate of this policies merit.

So I can't vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

where have i said that ?

where have i said that ?

What have you said?

The question makes no sense - and putting poll on it also. What is the relevance of the comment from the lady re people having kids on religious grounds? Surely that is a tricky one, Catholics are anti-contraception, are you saying that if they have multiple births above one kid should not get any help from the Gvmt?

I may be wrong but are you actually asking the following? (and a poll is not needed)

- For Child allowance should there be a sliding scale based on family incomes about a certain threshold and also taking into consideration things such as number of children in the family and other considerations such as incapacity benefits etc?

Then again I may be totally wrong in what you are asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

where does that say they can't have children though ? or did you mean the "money" rather than "children " and I've just misunderstood the intent of your post

You'd have to be pretty stupid to make that mistake given this is a thread about child benefits that you yourself actually posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â