Child Support ( Non Bollitics ideally)

[drat01]

Would be nice once we've wiped out Labours debt if

Yawn ...................so this is not political then Tony? Pah :-)

child support could increase for those that do actually need it to buy food and clothes for their children rather then being restored to those that don't need it for essentials

So a means test?

There are a lot of people that will feel this when it is removed.

Its 20 quid per week at the moment, which is 1040 per year net so for the sake of simple maths (and yes I know its not accurate) is about 1500 gross, so effectively these people will get a 1500 pay cut. If you have more kids then obviously the pay cut is larger. Or is that too simple a way of looking at it?

mine goes into their CTF ..

Oops there goes another thing :-)

[Straggler]

I just had a think about this. I earn just enough to have this benefit taken away from me. Not much more than the limit, but a bit and I always did think it a little strange that I would get child benefit. Now here is the rub, I knew as soon as the crunch hit exactly who would have to pay all this debt back. It is me and people like me. The bankers are all rolling in cash again as the very rich do (and will find creative ways with expensive accountants to avoid paying their share). The poor by definition can't pay so it is middle income Britain again who like me has a mortgage that gets paid, saves money, has a pension and behaves in a sensible, resonsible way and was in no way at fault that gets it in the neck financially.

I'm not arguing that I should not have to play my part, but I am very frustrated. The various changes in taxation and benefits are costing my family around 4 to 5 grand a year. We will get by, but it does hurt. I work very hard and earn that money, however my income is going backwards rapidly in real terms. Equally the insentive to earn more is slipping away, again with the changes I have to earn another £10k (less than £5k after tax and NI etc) from my employer to stand still. Do you have any idea how hard I have to work to earn an extra £10k? It is pretty bloody hard and employers are trying pretty hard to keep costs down themselves. I'm inclined to say that this will not happen.

So the question is "what do I want?". I can't help but pay as I believe in a society that helps the weak and protects the vunerable and I am in a position to do my bit. What I want is:

To know that the steps have been put in place to make sure this never happens again (not the bollocks rhetoric but the clear and defined laws).

To know who's head is on the block if it does go wrong again so I know where to turn up with the angry mob, torches and pitch forks.

To know who was responsible for the last crunch and to have them held accountable. These contemptuos **** have brought down most of the worlds economies and had the rest of us clean up the mess with as far as I can tell little more than one or two getting a bit of an uncomfortable questionsing in public. They have reached into the pockets of every hard working person in this and many other countries and stolen the money to pay for their gambling debt.

And I want the lot of them, not just the bankers, but the politicians who let Britain burn whilst they fiddled (and not the nice musical way either). I want their Ferraris' I want their houses, and I want them in the dock not just facing an uncomfortable question, but an uncomfortably long time in a cell with their minimum wage job contributing to the mountain (funny that the word mountain seems insufficient here) of debt.

Then when we have worked our way of debt and we sell our publicly held banks back into the private sector I want them to get a fair price for them. We the public want our money back from the investment that we have made and I for one am watching this one as closely as if I had chosen to invest the money myself. The problem for me is I believe all polititians of any party once in power become self serving rocket polishers, with principles and truth ejected at the first whiff of the No 10 leather seats. The bankers..... well they seem to revel in the self serving wankerdom world in which they live and it is these toss stained rags that will be making the decisions that the rest of us will have to live with.

Screw the individual policies, we all have to pay and we have very little choice about it, let us devote our energies to the witch hunt and make the bastards who have us wittering over the +'s and -'s of the next shitty policy desined to fleece us of a little more cash feel the pain they are putting the rest of us through.

As you may have gathered, I have some closure issues with the credit crunch that I probably should deal with.

[tonyh29]

Title of thread begun by tonyh29: Child Support (Non Bollitics ideally)

.. Would be nice once we've wiped out Labours debt...

:winkold:

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

so tongue smiley thingy to both of you :-)

[snowychap]

blah

so tongue smiley thingy to both of you :-)

A little playground, isn't it, mate?

Were you just waiting for someone else to ignore your plea so that you felt you had freedom to, too?

[tonyh29]

the thread was intended to try and avoid the red side saying NO and the blue side saying YES for no reason other than political ones .. and as such there has been some interesting discussion going on which was the intention

Ian's tax line and my labours debt one are just a little light relief .. i know you like taking some posts far too seriously , but not all of us do

[Chindie]

You obviously don't have kids and have never had to run a household.

Well, no obviously.

I don't think that precludes me from coming to a quite, quite sensible conclusion - £44k is enough to survive quite, quite well, £20 a week extra.

My parents never came near earning that much in a year and raised 3 children very well. Never wanted for a thing.

£20 extra is obviously helpful for anyone. But is it absolutely necessary for a household on at least £44k a year? I severely doubt it, and if it is necessary, theres a distinct possibility in my mind that theres something wrong with how you're looking after your money.

[tonyh29]

So a means test?

or we could just put in a blanket figure , say an individual income of over £44k

oh hang on .....

[snowychap]

my labours debt one ... just a little light relief

He he he. You keep telling yourself that, mate. :winkold:

Alternatively, it (they) could well just be viewed as typical bollitics bollocks.

[dundeevilla]

You obviously don't have kids and have never had to run a household.

Well, no obviously.

I don't think that precludes me from coming to a quite, quite sensible conclusion - £44k is enough to survive quite, quite well, £20 a week extra.

My parents never came near earning that much in a year and raised 3 children very well. Never wanted for a thing.

£20 extra is obviously helpful for anyone. But is it absolutely necessary for a household on at least £44k a year? I severely doubt it, and if it is necessary, theres a distinct possibility in my mind that theres something wrong with how you're looking after your money.

When you have a mortgage, need to run 2 cars to keep the two adults of the household in jobs, and have to pay for food, council tax, petrol, house/life/car insurance, clothes, nappies, household maintenance then come back and tell me that £80 a month makes no difference.

People who earn £22k/a couple on £44k are not well off.

[Chindie]

I didn't say it didn't make it a difference and I didn't say a family on £44k is well off either.

What I said was yes, it was helpful. But it's not like you'll be destitute without that £80 a month and absolutely need it is it? I happen to think that benefits should be given to people who require it, rather than ones where it'll be nice to have it.

I think a family could live quite well on a £44k income, even accepting all the costs family life has.

[Risso]

You obviously don't have kids and have never had to run a household.

Well, no obviously.

I don't think that precludes me from coming to a quite, quite sensible conclusion - £44k is enough to survive quite, quite well, £20 a week extra.

My parents never came near earning that much in a year and raised 3 children very well. Never wanted for a thing.

£20 extra is obviously helpful for anyone. But is it absolutely necessary for a household on at least £44k a year? I severely doubt it, and if it is necessary, theres a distinct possibility in my mind that theres something wrong with how you're looking after your money.

When you have a mortgage, need to run 2 cars to keep the two adults of the household in jobs, and have to pay for food, council tax, petrol, house/life/car insurance, clothes, nappies, household maintenance then come back and tell me that £80 a month makes no difference.

People who earn £22k/a couple on £44k are not well off.

Two couples on £22K won't be losing the income though. And if it's one person on £44K, then presumably the other person isn't working.

But on the whole I agree with what you're saying. Kids are bloody expensive.

[andyh]

Anyone who thinks that people earning over 44k is well off is deluded.

For a start, they pay a damn sight more tax than those who are not in the 40% tax bracket.

Think about it....someone earning 45k and paying 40% tax takes home not much more that someone earning 25-35k and paying standard tax. Add in tax credit, working family tax credit, and all the other stuff 'low income' families get and people just in the 40% bracket get a raw deal.

I guess the people who really NEED the money, the people who don't pay into the system, or don't pay as much into the system, will be able to continue to use the CB to pay for their fags,booze and lottery tickets !!

[Risso]

Anyone who thinks that people earning over 44k is well off is deluded.

For a start, they pay a damn sight more tax than those who are not in the 40% tax bracket.

Think about it....someone earning 45k and paying 40% tax takes home not much more that someone earning 25-35k and paying standard tax. Add in tax credit, working family tax credit, and all the other stuff 'low income' families get and people just in the 40% bracket get a raw deal.

I guess the people who really NEED the money, the people who don't pay into the system, or don't pay as much into the system, will be able to continue to use the CB to pay for their fags,booze and lottery tickets !!

You only pay 40% tax on the amount you earn above a certain limit. You don't pay 40% on all of your income.

[andyh]

well blow me, I didn't know that

[peterms]

When you have a mortgage, need to run 2 cars to keep the two adults of the household in jobs, and have to pay for food, council tax, petrol, house/life/car insurance, clothes, nappies, household maintenance then come back and tell me that £80 a month makes no difference.

People who earn £22k/a couple on £44k are not well off.

Well, you only need two cars because you've chosen to live out of town in a cheaper place to live, rather than live close to your work. Now if you had chosen to live in a more central place, so you could walk to work, you wouldn't need two cars.

Of course your housing costs would be higher, but that's ok if you can afford them and don't lose your job, at which point you will be told that you should have been living in a lower cost area because the state can't be expected to pick up the bill for your lavish lifestyle, collecting money each month and passing it on to the mortgage company or landlord.

Oh...hang on...

[peterms]

well blow me, I didn't know that

Over the last couple of days, I've heard a lot of things on the radio from people expressing forceful opinions based on assumptions which actually aren't based in fact.

It's amazing how simple repetition of stuff becomes so quickly taken as fact.

Well done for acknowledging that your information was flawed. Most people just sail on regardless.

[tonyh29]

Well done for acknowledging that your information was flawed. Most people just sail on regardless.

I may be wrong but I think there was a touch of sarcasm in the initial post !!

[peterms]

Well done for acknowledging that your information was flawed. Most people just sail on regardless.

I may be wrong but I think there was a touch of sarcasm in the initial post !!

I assumed not, as that would make the original comment nonsensical and just plain wrong, factually, as was pointed out. Maybe I'm just too trusting and naive.

[snowychap]

It's amazing how simple repetition of stuff becomes so quickly taken as fact.

Indeed. Perhaps we could term it the 'Petrov fallacy'.

[Chindie]

I think it's already got a name sadly . Big Lie method. Thank Goebbels for popularising it