is that parents earning a combined £88,000 a year ever got child benefit in the first place. Were previous governments mad? Answer - of course - they were but too terrified of media outrage.

Child benefit was never meant to be means tested.It's a universal benefit given to all.

All the Gypsies from Slovakia living up the road from me will continue to milk the system,while decent hard working people will go without.

Innocent Accused wrote:
All the Gypsies from Slovakia living up the road from me will continue to milk the system,while decent hard working people will go without.

Go without? They are on £40,000 a year !

£40,000 is not exactly a fortune for a young family to manage on in London.In cases where there may be more than 2 children it could well cause financial hardship.
It's a principle thing as well,it never was a means tested benefit,but available to all,regardless of income.It is in effect punishing hard work and enterprise.

I'm afraid I'm on the other side here IA although it will be harder for one parent families but £88,000 is more than enough for a couple.

Isn't it surprising how people tsk at £88,000 per year, and yet David Silva of Manchester City earns £250,000 a week and people cheer him on.

What an arse over tit world this is.

Child Benefit should have been scrapped for EVERYONE in the 80s. I dont like the idea of CASH being associated with children.

in the FAMILY COURTS the biggest rows when one of the parents is a CHAV and on benefits is about WHO GETS the Child Benefit book - it is really horrible how this allowance is so divisive.

It is an outdated thing - and this is a step in the right direction.

The Parents should be given a proper benefit to cover the costs of their family. If they choose to bonk alot and have hoardes of kiddies then they will have to have austere lives if they cant work. They cant expect the rest of us to pay for their lifestyles. That is wrong./

We live in a society that cares for children. Every child should be entitled to something regardless of how fortunate or unfortunate their parents circumstance. If you don't agree then go live sommewhere else.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317740...me-wife-lose-it.html

"But the main complaint was that the cuts will hit families with only one breadwinner harder than households where both parents work"

Seems things are not as simple as some on this thread would like too believe.There's a big difference between 2 incomes of 40+k than a single one.

As I mentioned before this is a tax on those hard working families who just about fall into the higher rate bracket.
Perhaps the rate to remove it should be much higher than the start of the higher rate bracket? Or better still remove benefits from economic migrants.

I think you are all wrong but I still remain a socialist and these types of payments ( as long as they are fair are the best way to distribute income and in that way all society benefits as the money keeps on the merry go round.

I don't why people are not screaming about companies like Vodafone ( and there are estimated to be over 1000 similar) who had 6 billion pounds tax written off last year... all these tax avoidance schemes if a abolished would wipe out any deficit.

The general public remain ignorant to these schemes and don't seem to give a toss-they just get led by the nose by the right wing media ...which blames those at the bottom of the heap for everything.

It's worked all through history so nothing new there.

No point blaming Nu Labour (= Lib Dem/Con Coalition) as most parties are similar.

I think the point is, Veritas, that we are seeing the incredible waste that has built up and it is vital Government is NOT dictated to by the media searching for a good headline ("Unfair benefit cuts; single Mums will suffer") but has the courage to trim, cut, simplify and improve the existing structure - which does include, in my opinion, not letting companies get away with murder but likewise does not penalise them for making profits.

The thing is, since previous governments thought that marriage 'wasn't a good thing' and ignored joint earnings this is the result of it. Someone on their own on £44,000 will cease to get child benefit, but joint earners who make £44,000 or more will still get it.
It's the system and it's the rotten to the core society and political make up in this country that has caused this situation.

Yes I can see a huge quantity of MFBs - Marry For Benefits. Which does seem a strange reason to speak those words. Including gays wishing to adopt I suppose.

Keep cutting Mr Osbourne. Just like I don't want my children or grand children to take responsibility for my credit card debts, I also don't want them to have to pay for the excesses of my generation - I want my generation to pay off the debt.

veritas wrote:
No point blaming Nu Labour

There is no one else to blame !

They were in charge and have got us into this debt !

steveimp wrote:
Someone on their own on £44,000 will cease to get child benefit, but joint earners who make £44,000 or more will still get it.

As I understand it, its simply too complicated to do it any other way.

Its simple to adjust an individual's earnings (as the IR have all the details already) but to overview a couple would require a massive amount of bureacracy which would wipe out any savings made.

At the end of the day most families fall into the existing situation - with just one parents earning over the limit - and the number of 2 parents families each earning just below the threshold is minimal.

Good luck to them - they have fallen within the boundaries (this time).

Angel wrote:
We live in a society that cares for children. Every child should be entitled to something regardless of how fortunate or unfortunate their parents circumstance. If you don't agree then go live sommewhere else.

How much of the existing child benefit actually goes on the children, angel ?

What percentage goes on fags, booze, bingo etc ?

Why do you think that workshy couples have so many kids ?

Its time people accepted responsibility and only had children if they could afford them .... instead of knocking them out and then expecting others to pay for them.

[quote]Angel wrote:
We live in a society that cares for children. Every child should be entitled to something regardless of how fortunate or unfortunate their parents circumstance. If you don't agree then go live sommewhere else.

That only applies if, as a country you can afford it. At the moment UK plc can't. So, those who want the state to pay for their children, then you DO need to look somewhere else. Good luck if you find somewhere softer than the UK.

olive oil wrote:
[quote]Angel wrote:
We live in a society that cares for children. Every child should be entitled to something regardless of how fortunate or unfortunate their parents circumstance. If you don't agree then go live sommewhere else.

That only applies if, as a country you can afford it. At the moment UK plc can't. So, those who want the state to pay for their children, then you DO need to look somewhere else. Good luck if you find somewhere softer than the UK.

I'm NOT looking to move thanks, it was an opinion. We must invest in our future generations. ITK, you're generalising again about chavs and benefits. Most parents i'm sure, spend the cash wisely.

Angel wrote:
ITK, you're generalising again about chavs and benefits. Most parents i'm sure, spend the cash wisely.

Of course, angel .......... !

There has never been a fat cow on a council estate, has there?
Unmarried mothers are a figment of my imagination, aren't they?

I saw a report today on BBC News which said most women were waiting till their early thirties before marrying.

Can you then explain why every tart in her late teens / early twenties, in my area has a bastard in a pushchair ?

Let me put it this way, angel .... when all these tarts finally realise that they either work or starve - then you'll see a reduction in unmarried mothers !