Child Benefit F****!

I have done nothing but rant about this since it was all announced yesterday so am going to rant here too (unless this post is kicked off of course)

I am absolutely fuming about the changes to the child benefit allowance all parents currently receive and this is why...........

I have been a single parent since day dot of my daughter been born - not through choice but circumstances. In the 14 years since my daughter was born, I have worked my butt off to further my career and earning potential to provide a roof over our heads without claiming benefits.

Now this so called government are penalising people like me for this hard work by stopping our child benefit.


What I am so angry about is the way this is to be done is so unfair! I will most likely lose the child benefit but the parents down the street that earn £40k a year each won't. My household income will be almost half theirs - my child benefit is stopped and they continue to receive it. How can this be fair!!??

I know we have to reduce the deficit, it's important to the economy. And I will happily (well maybe not so happily ) give up child benefit to help this situation if it's a fair system. £44k per year into a household is a fair amount and many many families manage on far less.

I personally think this needs to be and should be means tested. What do others think???

OK rant over

__________________
French Doors | Folding Sliding Doors | Folding Doors

Was talking about this in the office this morning, very emotive issue!

I'm in favour of cut backs to benefits, because the nation can't afford it, and we seemed to have spawned a welfare culture, with common arguments being "I can't earn any more than x otherwise I'll lose my benefits.."

But it has to be fair and well thought out, and this clearly isn't. Agree totally it should be means tested against the household, not individual salaries.

Appreciate the govt has to take drastic draconian action, but rushing in legislation or amending badly thought out policy's will do nothing for Camerons credibility or national morale plus cause more problems than it will fix!

__________________
cheers Steve
Forum Admin - teaboy and general gofer...

Forum Rules and FAQ's at a glance | Find me on Google+ | or even Facebook!

My Local Services - The UK and US Online Business Directory | JobsVitae - Recruitment Help and CV Creation

If you're here to spam, then expect a ban

Yes, that does mean 2 individual families will earn more and get it, but you could ague that each of those persons has done what you have - each as an individual earned their right to tax and benefits incentives. They could argue "why, when we as 2 individuals have worked our butt off each, got to where we are, and lose CB". Just a thought. Anyone getting money removed from them is going to be unhappy. Just that some gov changes affect you, some dont, there will come a time one a change is going to affect you at some point somewhere down the line.

To be honest though and to make it fair, why dont they scrap it altogether and redistribute the budget into another means-tested pot or better still, into the income tax pot and then those who do earn, paye accordingley and fairly. I think they should just do away with all these faffy benefits and make the taxes lighter as a result of working. Thats got to be much simpler and fairer to everyone then you only benefit if you work and cant cheat much.

PS MagnifyB, just set up as Ltd Co, pay yourself under £44k salary and take the rest in dividends. Simple. Then you're eligible

__________________
Virtual Business Address - £90 per year + postage - nothing else to pay, just one fixed price. Includes a Mail Forwarding Service.

Garden Summer Houses | Oak Framed Log Cabins Scotland

Van Racking | Van Signwriting | Roof Racks for Vans

------------------------
Forum Rules and FAQ's at a glance

Hmm, this issue doesn't effect me and probably wont for a few more years. Then I'll care and have an opinion! lol

Essentially there's always going to be a cut off point and the people at the border will feel hard done by. Having said that two people can survive on £44k comfortably.

I don't actually think this is a bad decision. The recent NHS changes are probably the worst decision that has been made. I'm out of rant for how much of a bad idea it is!

All for 40 hour working weeks for prisons though. Hopefully it wont be so successful that sending people to prison actually makes money

__________________
Hire a Jazz Band | Jazz in London

To add insult to injury (on a personal level) I've just heard on the BBC lunch news that they good old Torys are going to have a tax break for married couples within this parliament...........screwed again!! (along with all the unmarried couples in society)

The Torys caused me no end of grief, in the 80's - are they about to cause me the same issues???

ps- company Ltd status and VAT registration is on the agenda for next year

__________________
French Doors | Folding Sliding Doors | Folding Doors

Well I guess thats their way of saying you should be married and have a "happy home" because that's the way the world works.

You get school, get a job, get a spouse, get a child, get a mortgage then you get happy.

</satire>

__________________
Hire a Jazz Band | Jazz in London

lol - think they are living in the dark ages then and need to get real!

__________________
French Doors | Folding Sliding Doors | Folding Doors

If (and I can see them doing it before 2013) they close the loop hole and make the whole thing equal then I don't have a problem with it. Meaning if they make it so that a "household" that earns over £44K then they get no child benefits then OK.

As a country we need to make cut backs, it is as simple as that. We have got so used to having everything that when we talk about hardships it is usually things like "oh no we can't go to the cinema". Well, sorry but these are luxuries as are chocolate, crisps, fizzy drinks and microwave meals that cost more than decent food.

It is going to be tough but we as a country are screwed because of the lax attitude of spending that the previous governments (notice I'm not blaming one particular one).

For the record, my current household income falls below the threshold, I do not claim child benefit.

__________________
Credit Management Consultants
Collection of Overdue Invoices

I hear the official party line on why a household with a single earner of £45k loses benefit and two earners of £43k each keep it is because if they link it to the higher tax rate, they don't have to create and fund a whole new assessment system (and the staff training, appeals system and so on that go with it).

I'm not sure how I feel about it.

On the one hand, no household with a £45k earned income is likely to be thrust into heat-or-eat poverty by the loss of £1,000 per year.

On the other hand, this is being used by some high earners to justify the continued assault on the poorer members of society. "Look, we've sacrificed £20 a week without complaining, why can't you?"

I'm also flinching every time I hear a politician talk about how despite cuts "the most vulnerable" will always be protected. They never miss out that word "most" and are refusing to define where the cutoff point will land - does it cover pensioners? People with nowhere to live? People in a persistent vegetative state? I fear a worsening of the situation currently being played out in many areas, of people being too capable to be eligible for help, but too incapacitated to actually manage to fend for themselves. This talk of making it "fairer" by withdrawing a small amount of money from more affluent families is going to be cold comfort to those in that no-man's-land.

__________________
Virtually Mary - Virtual Assistant Services
Follow VirtuallyMary on Twitter

I'm worried about the way things are going too.

I agree what the government's proposing at the moment is unfair, they have to throw a sop to their traditional supporters and damn the rest of us.

They're also in a bind, aren't they? They were stupid to commit themselves to cutting the benefits bill so drastically when they know "lifestyle choices" not to work account for such a miniscule amount of the bill. Even their traditional supporters don't want to see the end of state pensions for OAPS, of child benefit (for married parents only!!) and of support for multiply handicapped or terminally ill people incapable of working.

If they hadn't made such unrealistic claims, maybe they would have left the child benefits issue alone.

Incidentally, the most astonishing fact about benefit levels is that they weren't originally set according to how much money people need to meet basic needs (eg a roof over their heads, healthy food, adequate heating for health, etc). All the people with real knowledge of the issues (eg CAB, Child Poverty Action Group, etc) have said for 20 years or so that benefit levels should be increased by about 20% to meet these basic costs. Some groups are worse off than others (eg I'm a right Scrooge but defy anyone to live wholly on the amount of money a single job seeker gets each week).

When governments have such an unrealistic view of the amount of money it costs to pay for the bare essentials in today's Britain, it's not surprising that they get the minimum wage wrong (it should be higher if the tax payer's to avoid subsidising the housing costs of the badly paid workers and non-workers alike).

Where's the next Beveridge?

__________________
Career Counselling | Graduate Careers Advice
Outplacement Support