Child Benefit F****!

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!

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

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

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

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>

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

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

I hear the official party line on why a household with a single earner of

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?