Ontopic What do you think about this proposal? v. Child Benefit reform.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dory

Now with 100% less wickie
Oct 15, 2004
36,512
2,624
673
Robin Hood Country
Marklar
6,816.90₥
Child benefit is to be axed for higher rate taxpayers from 2013, Chancellor George Osborne has announced.

He told the BBC it was a "big decision" but "absolutely necessary" as it would save £1bn a year at a time of extreme pressure on government finances.

Any couples where one parent earns about £44,000 - roughly the 40% tax level - and above will be affected.

Currently child benefit is paid to 7.7 million families with children, costing about £12bn a year.

Ministers estimate the change will affect about 1.2 million families.

Mr Osborne said: "It's very hard to justify taxing people on much lower incomes in order to pay the child benefit to some of the better off in our society."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300

With regard to the last comment I couldn't really agree more. Why am I paying for someone who earns £44,000 to have children? Maybe if you earn that much you shouldn't need handouts, and if you're gonna miss having handouts so much you should probably face reality and realise you cannot continue your excessive lifestle.

To be honest though - why am I paying for anyone to have children? If I had children I wouldn't expect a handout, I'd be responsible for my own choices and spend on my child what I earned fair and square.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
So right now the gov just hands you money if you have a child, whether you are in need or not?
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
Yup. Even if you're a millionaire you get £20/week for your first born and £13 for each subsequent child.

It's supposedly termed 'universal benefits'.
Yeah, no. Remove ALL benefits for having a child. That's just silly. Adopt if you want a child.
 

tre

My favorite chef is Mike Rowave
Oct 15, 2004
24,992
16,938
723
igloo
Marklar
16,857.48₥
they already do that up here. we make too much money to get that $100 a month or whatever it is they give you.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
what do those 2 things have to do with each other besides the fact that gay people adopt children and you're being self-serving?
If you are getting money no matter how much you have already to have a child, that is just incentive for the government to raise the population. Why do that? Take care of the kids that are already born but have been discarded by adopting.

Who's being self-serving, what now? It has nothing to do with being gay.

I like the Chinese method of TAXING you if you have children, and penalizing you if you have too many.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
I have a feeling adoption is probably an expensive process btw.
Yes. It leaves those with the means to actually take care of a child available to do so.

With socialized medicine, it would behoove the government to provide condoms and vasectomies to the public instead of paying thousands a year per person to have a baby.
 

Dory

Now with 100% less wickie
Oct 15, 2004
36,512
2,624
673
Robin Hood Country
Marklar
6,816.90₥
Yes. It leaves those with the means to actually take care of a child available to do so.
What the hell are you talking about? That's like saying only couples who can afford IVF should be able to care for children.

You shouldn't have to pay a deposit on a child, you shouldn't have to be rich to have a child. I could afford to have a child, yet I could not afford to pay a huge deposit and a bunch of registration fees etc. etc. bollocks.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
What the hell are you talking about? That's like saying only couples who can afford IVF should be able to care for children.

You shouldn't have to pay a deposit on a child, you shouldn't have to be rich to have a child. I could afford to have a child, yet I could not afford to pay a huge deposit and a bunch of registration fees etc. etc. bollocks.
And that's just to get your child into school. Pay for the pram and nappies and food and you are talking massive amounts. If a poor-ish couple had a child, I could imagine they could get by but the added money from the government could put them to a point that the child is thriving. But that couple should have concerned just how much a baby would cost before even starting that route. And that does not take into account those too poor to even provide a child with sufficient care at all and require 100% government stimulus to raise one. And if a parent(s) is of the means to have a child to pay for it's terribly extensive care, then they don't need the government's help anyway.
 

Dory

Now with 100% less wickie
Oct 15, 2004
36,512
2,624
673
Robin Hood Country
Marklar
6,816.90₥
I wasn't talking about school, school here is free you goober. I was talking the cost of adoption.

And no you are not necessarily talking massive amounts. You're talking massive amounts if you buy into corporate BS however I know plenty of couples who do not spoil their children, do not need the mod con latest pram bollocks and they do very well indeed on a low income and to boot they also have the happiest children that I've come across.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
I wasn't talking about school, school here is free you goober. I was talking the cost of adoption.

And no you are not necessarily talking massive amounts. You're talking massive amounts if you buy into corporate BS however I know plenty of couples who do not spoil their children, do not need the mod con latest pram bollocks and they do very well indeed on a low income and to boot they also have the happiest children that I've come across.
Then that's even MORE of a reason to stop giving money to parents just to have kids. If the only expense you have to worry about with a kid is nappies and a crib because the medical and education are already covered, why the hell can't the parents afford the 300 quid a month for nappies and food themselves?
 

shamwow

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
66,888
709
41
Marklar
0.40₥
If you are getting money no matter how much you have already to have a child, that is just incentive for the government to raise the population. Why do that? Take care of the kids that are already born but have been discarded by adopting.

Who's being self-serving, what now? It has nothing to do with being gay.

I like the Chinese method of TAXING you if you have children, and penalizing you if you have too many.
you get money for the kid if you adopt as well. that's why I was saying it was being self serving to take away the benefits for those that have their own biological children
 
Last edited:

kiwi

Messin’ with Sasquatch
Apr 22, 2005
19,395
6,694
373
Summer
Marklar
9,525.44₥
We basically do the same thing in the US, it's just divied out once a year in the form of a child tax credit.

Also, dude, DB, you don't have to be rich to be have kids, you just need priorities. We were making barely 30k when we had our first, and we survived and our kids have never been left wanting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.