Child Benefit

[DaveinGermany]

You breed 'em, you feed 'em! Personal responsibility seems to be a thing of the past where some of these "Families" are concerned. Added to that there are quite a few who have multiple kids from multiple partners, why the hell should those who go grafting to care for their own families have to stump up (via their taxes) for the lazy & feckless?

And we've not even started talking about the rest of the world who've come to good old Blighty, bringing their brood, the sick, lame & lazy, all with their hands out & haven't paid a penny in & are never likely to either!

[Margaret Pilkington]

If you cannot afford the upkeep of children, then you should not have them.
Why should the government be responsible for financially supporting children...that is the job of parents.
Contraception is freely available for all...and most people are educated about prevention of unwanted pregnancies.
Jason as for your comment about a child conceived through sexual assault or abuse, well that is a ludicrous comment.
If someone is subjected to such a thing and then they decide to continue with the pregnancy, they are taking responsibility for the child.

[taddy]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

If you cannot afford the upkeep of children, then you should not have them.
Why should the government be responsible for financially supporting children...that is the job of parents.
Contraception is freely available for all...and most people are educated about prevention of unwanted pregnancies.
Jason as for your comment about a child conceived through sexual assault or abuse, well that is a ludicrous comment.
If someone is subjected to such a thing and then they decide to continue with the pregnancy, they are taking responsibility for the child.

Correct, the welfare state was brought into being in the 1940s to help the genuine poor people of this country, not as an excuse to give the work shy the same benefits, ie, unlimited children, cars, holiday's, meals out etc, as the folk who have worked for them all their lives and this comment comes from a one time staunch socialist and lifetime union member. (one time meaning up until the so called new Labour and war monger Blair took over).
End of rant, Your's, Taddy.

[Rowlf]

Accyexplorer says my fuel allowance may be next to be cut. Well maybe it will but while I am being paid at least I know I have contributed all my working life to the system always paid a full stamp unlike most of the folk claiming far more than the fuel allowance who have never paid so much as a penny in the kitty.

[ferret man]

don't know how you can call them work shy, stealing charity boxes, mugging pensioners, house breaking, shoplifting, having a child every year or two. This is a standard CV of a time served scank, its hard graft supporting a drink and drug habit, cant support kids as well.

[gpick24]

I have a couple of points id like to raise, firstly this is for child benefit right? Is this the child benefit that every family is entitled to whether you're not working or on £100,000 a year?
Should be means tested rather than limiting the number of children per family.
Secondly, there's an awful long time from planning how many little cherubs you can afford to have to when the soul sucking leeches become financially independent, a lot can happen, people lose their jobs,partners leave, become abusive, get Ill or even worse. Should those left alone with children and the children themselves really be made to suffer because of those that abuse the system ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Neil]

Originally Posted by gpick24

I have a couple of points id like to raise, firstly this is for child benefit right? Is this the child benefit that every family is entitled to whether you're not working or on £100,000 a year?
Should be means tested rather than limiting the number of children per family.
Secondly, there's an awful long time from planning how many little cherubs you can afford to have to when the soul sucking leeches become financially independent, a lot can happen, people lose their jobs,partners leave, become abusive, get Ill or even worse. Should those left alone with children and the children themselves really be made to suffer because of those that abuse the system ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The £100,000 is a sticking point. If you have 2 parents earning £49,999 each totalling £99,998 per year you will get full child benefit. If however you have one parent earning £60,000 and the other parent decides to stay at home and look after the children then you get nothing.

If you are in employment and earn between £50,000 and £60,000 you get a percentage of the full child benefit, you can thank the Tories for that. You also have the pleasure of filling in a tax return every year even though your company pays your tax by PAYE. Again thank you Tories.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I watched the Panorama programme last night on the subject of the Benefits cap.
In the main those who were featured expressed an 'entitlement' and seemed to be blind to the causes of their so called poverty.
Most of those featured had mobile phones, (and you are going to tell me that a mobile phone is a necessity if you are seeking a job, or claiming benefits...well, that may be true, but most of them seemed to be smartphones.)
There was only one single father who we saw going for an interview...he neither smoked nor drank.
There was one woman who railed at the government for putting her in poverty....she had seven children.All being cared for by someone else.
Where was the father/fathers of these children? Why wasn't some contribution for their care being taken from him?

How is it fair for someone to stay at home and get £20,000per year when there are parents working and not earning that amount?
Those working parents are contributing in taxes(however low a rate) and NI contributions.
Those on benefits do not pay any taxes(apart from those levied on purchases) or NI contributions.

I had only one child and one of the reasons for this was that I couldnot afford more than that.(there was NO child benefit for most of the time my daughter was growing up...and when I was eligible for it I never claimed it. I believed that the funding of my child was MY responsibility, not that of the government.

[Gremlin]

You've just put my thoughts into words Margaret.
I'm in total agreement with you.

[cashman]

Its like someone rightly said earlier, "Responsibility has gone out the window"

[gpick24]

Originally Posted by Neil

The £100,000 is a sticking point. If you have 2 parents earning £49,999 each totalling £99,998 per year you will get full child benefit. If however you have one parent earning £60,000 and the other parent decides to stay at home and look after the children then you get nothing.

If you are in employment and earn between £50,000 and £60,000 you get a percentage of the full child benefit, you can thank the Tories for that. You also have the pleasure of filling in a tax return every year even though your company pays your tax by PAYE. Again thank you Tories.

So this is what used to be called family allowance then.

[Shurm]

Oh well missed the deadline better higher the retirement age now cos I'll be working forever

[Neil]

Originally Posted by gpick24

So this is what used to be called family allowance then.

Yes that's it.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

....there was NO child benefit for most of the time my daughter was growing up...

You must be really old because child benefit/family allowance/child tax allowances/family income supplement etc has been around in one form or another since 1909 (also between 1798 and 1805 but I know you're not that old )

Have a read of this interested page explaining where it all started Where it all started « Policy « Child Benefit

[gpick24]

The issue I have with family allowance isn`t people on low income claiming for more than 2 children it`s those on high income claiming it when they don`t (or shouldn`t) need it, a family earning £100,000 a year still claiming it is just greedy.