Right, so aP paying his taxes and NI now doesn’t pay for his own pension and future health care?

er…. no, I don’t think they put his money to one side for when he needs it

They’re pretty much spending what they have coming in as it comes in, so aP’s pension & health care will depend [to a large extent] on future tax & NI receipts

Yet again, it appears that government fail to support hardworking families that live by traditional family values (one parent working, the other at home providing good childcare).

They’d prefer to have both parents working and the kids at friends / childminders etc and they wonder why the youth have even less respect for authority / law than previous generations

a tory party introducing something that hits single parents? hands up everyone who’s surprised at that.

How many single parents do you know who earn >£45k?

Maybe you should try sometimes taking off your red tinted glasses, BBSB.

er…. no, I don’t think they put his money to one side for when he needs it

No I know, but the fact is that he has paid into the system, and therefore is entitled to it when he needs it. If I pay into a pension scheme for when I’m old and frail, then I bloody well expect to have something to rely on when time comes that I need it. Same with healthcare; I don’t want to have to need it, but I’m happy to pay for it just in case. If someone else needs treatment at a time I don’t, then fine, spend the money. But make sure there’s enough for when I do.

Labour voters in favour of benefits for the rich shocka!

You have children you have to make sacrifices.

If you are really stretched the government helps you out. I have not seen a single decent reason in this thread why people with income above the limit set should receive child benefit. Your income will be less of course but it’s more than enough for a family to lie off of unsupported.

Labour voters in favour of benefits for the rich shocka!

I’m not. I say tax the bastards more heavily.

I’d tax Tory voters 3 times the amount everyone else gets taxed….

then I bloody well expect to have something to rely on when time comes that I need it.

You can expect all you want but it won’t be there unless enough people are paying into it when you need it

uplink – Member

then I bloody well expect to have something to rely on when time comes that I need it.

You can expect all you want but it won’t be there unless enough people are paying into it when you need it

That’s right, because at the moment most pension funds are underfunded and if they were wound up there would not be enough money to pay out all of the current and future liabilities.

It is quite frightening just how broke this country is and how much we have borrowed against the future.

but the fact is that he has paid into the system, and therefore is entitled to it when he needs it.

That’s not the way it works – as you’re well aware, Fred. There’s no concept of “entitlement”, you’re paying into the system for the good of those less fortunate – if you don’t happen to need what the system can do for you, so don’t get your money’s worth than that’s because you’ve been fortunate rather than the other way round.

As to getting your pension – by paying for other people’s kids education now, that’s exactly how you will get it paid for when the time comes. Not vastly conceptually different to a private pension investing on the stockmarket.

The point of child benefit was that it was a benefit for the children, set at a time when men were the main/sole earner and could be relied upon to drink the weekly wage.

Child benefit was therefore a way of ensuring that poverty was avoided; laudable at the time, but now that it’s become just another source of income, we have to question the need for it and the effectiveness.

I don’t need the child benefit, but I’d far rather that it was properly means tested, then INCREASED for those at the bottom of the pile. Statistics on child poverty in the UK (UNICEF study, Bradbury, 1999) demonstrate that we have approximately 20% of our children living below the official poverty line. OK, so you can argue that poverty is relative, but nevertheless 20% is a high number.

Overall, I’m somewhat uncomfortably agreeing with the ConDems that it should be taken from high earners, but as I say, I’d go a step further and give all that money gained to those who could best make use of it.

No I know, but the fact is that he has paid into the system, and therefore is entitled to it when he needs it.

But it doesn’t work like that now does it? I mean plenty get more out of the system than they pay in and plenty get less out – that’s what most of us want right?

I’m not. I say tax the bastards more heavily.

Yeah bloomin’ rich people what have they ever done for us?

You have children you have to make sacrifices.

But it’s reasonable to expect support if one parent were to choose to give up work to bring up those children. But Labour too were all over the idea that Mum works and pays a child minder as they get the income in all manner of ways.. never mind what is best for the child despite their protestations.

You can rail as much as you like about ‘you can afford it’ and it’s true, but the fact is it’s a pretty unfair and poorly thought out way of implementing something that needed doing.

There’s no concept of “entitlement”,

Yes there is! If you pay your Tax and NI, then you do so on the understanding that when you rely on a pension and healthcare, it is there for you. Yes, we all help fund other people’s children and stuff, but the argument here is that benefits to those who don’t need them drain resources away from those who do. Child Benefit reform is long overdue.

Knowing aP personally, I know for a fact that he is more than happy to pay taxes to help benefit others who are less fortunate. People don’t choose to be ill, or need special services to give them a decent standard of living or quality of life. People do however choose to have children. That many people who really don’t need Child Benefit can still get it, is unfair on others who’ve made different choices. The money could be much better spent on services for those that actually need them.

Child Benefit is apparently £20.30 for the eldest child, and £13.40 for each additional child, per week.

So a family with 3 kids gets £47.10 a week.

You’re telling me a family with a decent income needs such a relatively small amount?

Giving all families with children CB regardless of income is wasteful.

But it’s not that poorer people are losing out it’s just that non-kid having people are paying a bit to those with kids. Those with kids still have bigger costs than those without, the payments just negate that a bit. Better off people pay more tax than the poorer but the amount they should pay is opinion.

The point of child benefit was that it was a benefit for the children, set at a time when men were the main/sole earner and could be relied upon to drink the weekly wage.

Wasn’t it to encourage people to have children after the decimation of the male population during the course of two world wars? Nothing to do with benefiting children at all as far as I understand it.

Nothing to do with benefiting children at all as far as I understand it.

The way they paid it [straight to the mother] was though

it’s just that non-kid having people are paying a bit to those with kids

almost like non smokers pay to fund the bill that smokers cause the NHS

according to osbourne the number of families with individual incomes over 43k but earning less than 85 combined is 900 000

so nearly a million families will not be loosing the benefit at a cost of 900000 x £1000 assuming 1 child = 1 billion a year

how can it not be cost effective to calculate that??

almost like non smokers pay to fund the bill that smokers cause the NHS

Erm, so the tax on tobacco that smokers pay doesn’t go towards NHS upkeep then? Truth is, that the majority of smokers will actually pay shit loads of tax over their lifetime, but never receive treatment costing anywhere near the amount they’ll have paid in. So, smokers help fund the NHs for non-smokers….

(Tax revenue from tobacco products is roughly double what it’s estimated to cost the NHS to treat those suffering from smoking-related illness)

Not defending smoking btw. It’s a disgusting unhealthy habit. It is however a choice I am free to make.

So, smokers help fund the NHs for non-smokers….

Yeah help fund it – but they don’t pay in enough so smokers cost more to the country than they contribute.

Yeah help fund it – but they don’t pay in enough so smokers cost more to the country than they contribute.

You’re having a bubble, aren’t you?

What does that even mean?

Yet again, it appears that government fail to support hardworking families that live by traditional family values

Not at all – they’re simply stopping throwing money at families who have enough of it already. Those who need support still get it.

They’d prefer to have both parents working and the kids at friends / childminders etc and they wonder why the youth have even less respect for authority / law than previous generations

How hard is it to understand that this isn’t a policy thing – it’s simply the easiest way to save money by not giving benefits to those who don’t actually need them. You do realise that even if your wife went out to work, as a higher rate tax payer you’d still not get CB? Or are you imagining some strange alternative reality where you can earn less to drop you below the threshold if your wife earns more? Do you even really think that it will make any difference at all to whether parents both choose to work when one is in a >£45k a year job? I do find the idea that children of families with a household income >£45k are in danger of becoming delinquents because they go to nursery rather than stay at home with mum very amusing though!

What does that even mean?

Now I’ll explain for you. Smoking costs the country money – through increased healthcare and lost revenue from days off ill OK? Right then they pay money to the Government as they pay tax on cigarettes OK? So as the latter isn’t enough to pay for the former non-smokers have to make up the rest. OK now?

is that the sound of the well off complaining that they got what they asked for?

i saw a great interview where some old bat told the interviewer that she would happily see every benefit cut to save the dear old economy – she was horrified to discover that her bus pass and winter fuel allowance were considered benefits.

185 posts 66 voices – very telling.

Now I’ll explain for you. Smoking costs the country money – through increased healthcare and lost revenue from days off ill OK? Right then they pay money to the Government as they pay tax on cigarettes OK? So as the latter isn’t enough to pay for the former non-smokers have to make up the rest. OK now?

Not really. The Excise and Tax revenue from tobacco is over £10 Billion per year. The estimated, not ‘estimated’ cost of treating people with smoking related illnesses costs about £5 Billion per year.

Then, consider the tobacco industry in the UK. How many people are employed by it? Consider the profits generated by tobacco retailers. Then consider how much more tax is generated by that, and the NI that is paid by all those employed by or benefiting from the industry.

Smoking doesn’t cost the country money, it makes money for the country.

Why else do you think tobacco is tolerated??

It’s tolerated only in the sense that it can’t be banned.

You don’t agree with the contents of this I suppose?:

http://money.uk.msn.com/news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=152625392

Not really. The Excise and Tax revenue from tobacco is over £10 Billion per year. The estimated, not ‘estimated’ cost of treating people with smoking related illnesses costs about £5 Billion per year.

That’s underestimating the advantages of having lots of smokers – it’s ignoring the costs of treating life-ending non-smoking diseases, after all if you die of lung cancer you can’t then die of senile dementia. Too, smokers die earlier in their retirement, which means less pension payouts.

You don’t agree with the contents of this I suppose?:

http://money.uk.msn.com/news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=152625392

No, for the reasons above. The figures may be accurate (I’ve no idea), but just calculating the cost of smoking related diseases and the amount of tax raised gives an incomplete picture.

I have no problem with the decision at all.

They have to cut tax spending somewhere – this is hardly the most vicious of cuts. In fact I was shocked when we found out we get child benefit – seems unfair.

You don’t agree with the contents of this I suppose?

I do actually.

Mogrim – Well I suppose then there’s also people dying in their prime who could be contributing tax for more decades to come? I’d like to see proper figures on this but do they exist?

In fact I was shocked when we found out we get child benefit – seems unfair.

Surf-Mat; do you actually claim it?

tiger – smoker dies younger so get less pensions – far less. Thats a big saving

Elfin – we got it for a little while (while the missus was on maternity leave) but don’t think we get it any more.

I probably ought to check…

surt mat

thats child tax credits your mistaking
everybody with kids under 18 (I think) gets child benifit, its not means tested (at the moment)

tiger – smoker dies younger so get less pensions – far less. Thats a big saving

Ooh so more pension for non-smokers? OK, I’m convinced smoke away all ye smokers.

Surf-Mat – Member
Elfin – we got it for a little while (while the missus was on maternity leave) but don’t think we get it any more.

I probably ought to check…

iain1775 – Member
surt mat

thats child tax credits your mistaking
everybody with kids under 18 (I think) gets child benifit, its not means tested (at the moment)
You will be getting child benefit as Iain says. Tax credits are different and means tested. Once you start to claim child benefit you (at the moment) get it automatically into the nominated account.

It’s about time it was axed for people like me. Getting it has been almost embarassing. And there is no choice.

However the way they are going to axe it is pretty silly – they are going to pay it to us, and then take it back via Tax. 👿

Queen Mum was a smoker.

She lived ’til ‘undred and one.

She had the best education, food, accommodation and healthcare anyone could ever hope for.

She never worked or paid tax her entire life….

Gawd bless ‘er!