Child Benefit Cap

[Jokester]

1. ALL regions have a growth rate, none are expected to decline. Just because ours isn't as rapid as Asia's doesn't mean it still isn't going up (contrary to the claim I was replying to).

2. The increase in population in Asia also includes global migration which they predict will go up. With that part of the world inevitably become the richest in the future there will inevitably be a positive migration effect as proven by the diverse societies of current 1st world countries.

Our growth will be due to a shift to a much higher % of people in retirement, Japan now is where we will be in 20 years time

To offset the aging population in the UK will require immigration on a scale never seen before in the modern UK, tens of millions of people of working age will need to come here. Do you think this will go down well with the existing population given the social stress caused by a couple of million in the last 20years?

 

[Guest2]

The benefit system in this country is what is keeping this country out of deep recession. The money spent on benefits created jobs, as benefit claimants spend all there money.

So if overnight benefits were all just stopped, the country would go into deep recession? Doubt it very much, more like a few people would lose jobs in job centers, pubs and Primark

*just saying those because they seemed to be the main places people on benefits were going when I claimed jobseekes for a couple of weeks a few years back*

 

[estebanrey]

A badly implemented cap isn't an argument against a cap in principle.

Personally I don't agree with universal benefits but I would implement cliff edges either. IMO, benefits should be fazed in and out based on income (and other factors like cost of living in that part of the world and all the other things that are currently taken into consideration). For example, in your average part of the country a couple on a combined income of say £100k would get no child benefit. A couple on £50k between them would get half of the full amount whereas a couple taking a combined £35k would get the full amount, with many increments in between.

 

[dowie]

Have they sorted out the issue with 2 parents earning just less than £50k each getting the benefit but a single parent earning just over £50k doesn't?

Until that's sorted then I don't agree with the cap.

you mean like how a single parent earning over 42k or so gets taxed at 40% on income above that amount but two parents earning below that amount are only paying 20% on their taxable income?

actually I believe they have made some changes to it though I didn't see a huge issue in the first place

 

[Amp34]

She does have a couple of interesting points although I don't necessarily agree with her...

Yeah and that isn't expecting me, someone who earns a fraction of your husband's wage to subsidize your choice to reproduce just because I haven't yet contributed to the world's already over populated planet.

So you earn a fraction of his wages yet subsidise him? I'm guessing here but I assume you pay a fraction of the tax he does as well... He is subsidising you significantly, the only difference now is he is subsidising others more.

The idea you are subsidising someone who pays vastly more tax is not really a valid argument...

State Education isn't a benefit payment is it. Nor is the NHS or your GP which is also gives as an example.

Both are rights.

Yet child benefit could be seen to be the same. Just because we take something for granted now doesn't mean it will always be.

Morally outrageous? So the 90% poorest not having to subsidise the children of parents of the 10% richest is on the same level as rape, murder and necrophilia is it? Go and ask hubby if you can borrow his gold credit card so you can buy yourself a sense of ******* perspective woman.

Grumpy much? Go marry a rich woman, she can work that jealousy out of you.

I'm very much an all or nothing guy myself, either benefits are available for all (not income assessed) or they aren't. Those with more income generally pay more tax and can volunteer to not accept the benefit if they feel they don't need it. It also has the benefit of simplifying the system reducing bureaucracy.

 

[Destination]

this is such a moronic thing to say, the population is ageing, we are actually having less babies now then 50 years ago, we will run out of people unless the birth rate increases.

Instead of child benefit and alternative is to just have state child care like some Scandinavian countries, its appalling how much under 5 child care costs, more people would be inclined to work if it was cheaper or free at the point of use. If you are on a low income there is no point in going to work if you have a child under 5. for example we pay £590 a month for 2.5 days of nursery

Okay so you pay £600 a month for 2.5 days of nursery, and yet its 'moronic' your words to suggest people don't wish to fund others children.
Your child benefit doesn't cover 2 months in the year of your childcare.
The system is insane, a jobless family who have no intention of working, and 6 children, don't have your -£7200 a year expense, -£6200 after child benefit, they have a +£6000 a year child benefit income. They're doing nothing, you find yourself out working. Big difference there, and yet they should keep that benefit.

Populating the country with impoverished state funded families isn't the way forward, it hasn't been since landowners owned all the factories and people worked in the fields and mills form 12-14 years of age until death in their midthirties.

Anyway,

Completing the child benefit claim form (even if you can't claim any child benefit) ensures you are registered to receive national insurance credits, which can protect your state pension and help your child get their national insurance number

I somehow doubt they'll pay me any state pension by the time I reach that age. Worse, it would appear that if you don't want to claim the child benefits for a new child, as you are no longer entitled to such a benefit, the govt actually still needs you to fill in the form, claim the benefit, then pay the benefit back to them, so they have a record of the childs existance, and so they can start taxing and NIing your child when they reach 16, else they might have great difficulty knowing the child existed at all.

OMG! This is actually a terrible thing, it shows what a shocking mess the system is in, not going forward but now.

 

[LordSplodge]

Ain't the feeling of entitlement a bitch?

The cap needs to be sorted so that it is a combined income of 50K. Ten k short of that and my son went for nothing. CB for those on 50K+ is a waste of money. Said money that could help those that need the services of food banks.

Food. banks. In 21st Century UK. Shameful. Instead of sorting that mess out we have privileged bints whining. Cry. Me. A. ****ing. River.

 

[Castiel]

We don't need child benefit, we put it straight into a bank account for my son when he goes to uni or gets a job. If it was to be tasked to those that needed it, rather than just stopped then I would support means testing.....but it needs to be on family income, not individual earnings.

 

[No1newts]

Any family where 1 parent alone earns over 50K clearly doesn't need, nay deserve the same help as, say, a single mother earning 20K.

Especially if the other parent is earning as well.

Benefits should be reserved for people who without them would actually struggle to live, not those who otherwise might not be able to go skiing every year.

Define well? What about the family where they both earn 49k? What if one is earning a lot but the other is disabled?

Lets all drop more generalisation bombs! Wheeeeeeeeee!!!!!!



In theory I'm not against caps but wide ranging net casting like above moronic comments belong in the Daily Mail with a picture of a sad family stood next to them.

 

[Jokester]

you mean like how a single parent earning over 42k or so gets taxed at 40% on income above that amount but two parents earning below that amount are only paying 20% on their taxable income?

actually I believe they have made some changes to it though I didn't see a huge issue in the first place

I think this is fundamentally the issue - it's completely unworkable when you look at it like that. People should be able to offset their income versus their partners, but it would be so open to abuse.

 

[LordSplodge]

We don't need child benefit, we put it straight into a bank account for my son when he goes to uni or gets a job. If it was to be tasked to those that needed it, rather than just stopped then I would support means testing.....but it needs to be on family income, not individual earnings.

What I was trying to say before I got ****ed off and started ranting.

The rare cases that abuse the benefits system annoy me but I'd rather support the needy and risk some of the support going to those abusing the system than fund the privileged.

Some people who are privileged seem to think they are more deserving than the unfortunate.

 

[Amp34]

But what you're suggesting is surely a pyramid scheme of more and more children to maintain the lifestyle of older people, and not sustainable.

The current growth model is basically a giant pyramid scheme. Exponential growth is needed to sustain the current system. Unfortunately the earth is now really struggling with that growth model...

 

[SDK^]

We save our child benefit for my sons future so this reduction is another cut back for him

 

[Nitefly]

People should be able to offset their income versus their partners, but it would be so open to abuse.

That's what I was trying to say earlier when I mentioned the extant cap might be the 'easiest' way of doing it.

 

[estebanrey]

Our growth will be due to a shift to a much higher % of people in retirement, Japan now is where we will be in 20 years time

To offset the aging population in the UK will require immigration on a scale never seen before in the modern UK, tens of millions of people of working age will need to come here. Do you think this will go down well with the existing population given the social stress caused by a couple of million in the last 20years?

As monkey nut said on the last page, if your solution is increasing birthrate you are basically advocating a pyramid scheme.

The current average life expectancy in the UK is 80. The retirement age will be 68 for most of the current population. So on average, pensioners will be subsidised for 12 years of their lives.

Compare this to a newborn child who will be heavily subsidized for the first 16 years of their life, and generously subsidized for a good years after that too (colleges, universities which still get a lot of money from the government despite the rise on fees, apprenticeships etc).

With that in mind let's compare the figures...

Government Money Spent On The Aged Annually
£74.2 bn - Pensions
£8.11 bn - Pension Credits

Total: £82.31 bn
Total Over 12 Years: £987.72 bn

Government Money Spent On The Young Anually
£56.27 bn - Dept For Education
£51.54 bn - Education funding agency
£46.42 bn - Schools

Total: £154.23 bn
Total Over 16 Years: £2467.68 bn

Source
* Of course there are other things I couldn't get like the age related breakdown of NHS spending (I can't see maternity and children's walls being cheap though), free bus passes & T.V Licenses (although they may be counted under the Pensions figure) and a few other minor things which are unlikely to change the picture you see above.

Solving the ageing population by producing more kids is like trying to solve a £10 debt by borrowing a further £20.

 

[feedtheram]

They should scrap the whole thing. Seems a very odd thing to dish out to everyone. Why offer other types of benefits such as child tax credits plus this - surely the only people who are meant to benefit are low / no income families who should have other types of benefit anyway?

 

[JBod]

The main problem I have with it is that it is such a sweeping generalisation. Earning 50k in London is not the same as earning 50k outside the big cities.

I am going to lose my CB which actually made a reasonable difference what with the food shopping costing over £100+ a week now. I earn over £50k a year and under £100k. But I work in Shoreditch next to The City, in order to afford a house (3 bed terrace) I had to buy down in Surrey not far from Gatwick (Coulsdon) which means 1.5-2hr commute each way every day 5 days a week and the travel costs associated with (just risen again WAY above inflation as per usual).

My wife gave up work to full time look after our younger daughter (2) while our son (3.5) goes to nursery 3 times a week (£400+ a month). Because full time nursery care for both children was a lot more than she earned. Our calculations for having children (both planned and don't want more) INCLUDED the child benefits and the tax credits.

So here I am as the single earner in the household of 4 people, just over the £60k boundary losing out because Gordon Brown was a retard who spent all the countries money propping up the chav class and bailing out banks.

 

[MrMoonX]

Okay so you pay £600 a month for 2.5 days of nursery, and yet its 'moronic' your words to suggest people don't wish to fund others children.
Your child benefit doesn't cover 2 months in the year of your childcare.
The system is insane, a jobless family who have no intention of working, and 6 children, don't have your -£7200 a year expense, -£6200 after child benefit, they have a +£6000 a year child benefit income. They're doing nothing, you find yourself out working. Big difference there, and yet they should keep that benefit.

Populating the country with impoverished state funded families isn't the way forward, it hasn't been since landowners owned all the factories and people worked in the fields and mills form 12-14 years of age until death in their midthirties.

Anyway,


I somehow doubt they'll pay me any state pension by the time I reach that age. Worse, it would appear that if you don't want to claim the child benefits for a new child, as you are no longer entitled to such a benefit, the govt actually still needs you to fill in the form, claim the benefit, then pay the benefit back to them, so they have a record of the childs existance, and so they can start taxing and NIing your child when they reach 16, else they might have great difficulty knowing the child existed at all.

OMG! This is actually a terrible thing, it shows what a shocking mess the system is in, not going forward but now.

Yes but the problem isn't people not working the problem is not enough professional working people having children because the costs of Childcare are prohibitive. The best option is to have state Childcare or benefit for those that can and are in work, so they keep working, many women give up work and often the state has to pick up them in later life as they have no pension due to spending years out of work due to having kids. The long term benefits would be huge, unfortunately the system as is discriminates massively against working age women

 

[Jokester]

As monkey nut said on the last page, if your solution is increasing birthrate you are basically advocating a pyramid scheme.

Immigration is no different, you're just providing workers from a different source.

 

[n111ck]

Child benefit is essentially just a national insurance refund (for those that actually work).

I can understand why that woman is aggrieved when you see your hard earned cash squandered to the Jeremy Kyle brigade. Some may deserve their benefits but I suspect they are in the minority these days.