Thanks Mr Osbourne

Reggie_Perrin

As of 2013 I will be £200 a month worse off whilst someone next door who between them earn far more than I do will not. My wife only works part time on £8 an hour.

CBIT

Radical view here but..........why isn't child benefit just scrapped???

gorefidel

CBDS wrote:Radical view here but..........why isn't child benefit just scrapped???

Have a look at the Guardian website and see all the whining at this measure. They have to do it in stages. But yeah, I agree. And the fact that in future no one can get paid more that than the average wage. Poor cunts who work for less must be well happy and why can't they do it now rather than 2013?

Reggie_Perrin

CBDS wrote:Radical view here but..........why isn't child benefit just scrapped???

Do you receive it?

Djpekingman

Reggie Perrin wrote:
CBDS wrote:Radical view here but..........why isn't child benefit just scrapped???
Do you receive it?

Don't understand why its not scrapped and factored into PAYE allowances. You already get allowances for kids do you not?

Reggie_Perrin

Djpekingman wrote:
Reggie Perrin wrote:
CBDS wrote:Radical view here but..........why isn't child benefit just scrapped???
Do you receive it?
Don't understand why its not scrapped and factored into PAYE allowances. You already get allowances for kids do you not?

No but you may be right about PAYE.. CB was originally paid to the mother to ensure they had money the husband didn't have control of, not sure that is relevant these days.

CBIT

Reggie Perrin wrote:
CBDS wrote:Radical view here but..........why isn't child benefit just scrapped???
Do you receive it?

nope

Smutty_Lips

Hopefully this benefits review might see a fall in rental incomes, the cost of private rental has surely been propped up by indirect state subsidy of the private landlords.

Reggie_Perrin

CBDS wrote:
Reggie Perrin wrote:
CBDS wrote:Radical view here but..........why isn't child benefit just scrapped???
Do you receive it?
nope

Then it's not a personal budget consideration fir you then is it? It will not affect you at all as there wi be no tax cut because of it's removal.It's electoral suicide as well as he's just fucked his core support up the arse.

gorefidel

Reggie Perrin wrote:
CBDS wrote:
Reggie Perrin wrote:Do you receive it?
nope
Then it's not a personal budget consideration fir you then is it? It will not affect you at all as there wi be no tax cut because of it's removal.It's electoral suicide as well as he's just fucked his core support up the arse.

Seems to have gone down well.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/audio/2010/oct/04/michael-white-conference-daily

Reggie_Perrin

I stand corrected there may be tax allowances to compensate. Those earning not much more than the tax threshold have been hammered otherwise. I'm all for stopping people getting paid door breeding but why not cap it at 2 kids?

We as a family cannot easily lose £200 a month and have done nothing to deserve that. We are not the example of middle class wealth used to justify removing universal benefits. We don't have Harry and Jacasta at public schools.

Mitaman

Smutty Lips wrote:Hopefully this benefits review might see a fall in rental incomes, the cost of private rental has surely been propped up by indirect state subsidy of the private landlords.

Good point, it will be interesting to see the level of impact this has. It will be worse in some parts of the country than others for sure. The 'slum' landlords could get mullered, but there is always a knock-on effect to the greater property market. That said, there is a housing shortage alledgedly.Could also someone tell me why anybody/ family on 45,000+ a year should get any state handouts at all? Surely the reason for the welfare state is to protect the needy and vulnerable in society. I am all for that personally, but the benefits have crept up the league table and ALL in the name of buying Labour votes?

gorefidel

Mitaman wrote:
Smutty Lips wrote:Hopefully this benefits review might see a fall in rental incomes, the cost of private rental has surely been propped up by indirect state subsidy of the private landlords.
Good point, it will be interesting to see the level of impact this has. It will be worse in some parts of the country than others for sure. The 'slum' landlords could get mullered, but there is always a knock-on effect to the greater property market. That said, there is a housing shortage alledgedly.Could also someone tell me why anybody/ family on 45,000+ a year should get any state handouts at all? Surely the reason for the welfare state is to protect the needy and vulnerable in society. I am all for that personally, but the benefits have crept up the league table and ALL in the name of buying Labour votes?

Well said, my next door neighbour is currently getting 1500 a month in housing benefit alone. Never worked a fucking day in her life, but can fuck off and leaves five kids while she goes out and gets fucking pissed and laid Thursday thorough Sunday. Runs a car, home delivery of her shopping. I wonder how she'll cope on only 26k a year.If the government wasn't such a mess, they could move to a single benefit sooner. And paying an average wage is still a big number. Never mind 45k, no one should get fuck all above 26k, only the useless cunts couldn't implement it other than through the tax system.

Mitaman

gorefidel wrote:
Mitaman wrote:
Smutty Lips wrote:Hopefully this benefits review might see a fall in rental incomes, the cost of private rental has surely been propped up by indirect state subsidy of the private landlords.
Good point, it will be interesting to see the level of impact this has. It will be worse in some parts of the country than others for sure. The 'slum' landlords could get mullered, but there is always a knock-on effect to the greater property market. That said, there is a housing shortage alledgedly.Could also someone tell me why anybody/ family on 45,000+ a year should get any state handouts at all? Surely the reason for the welfare state is to protect the needy and vulnerable in society. I am all for that personally, but the benefits have crept up the league table and ALL in the name of buying Labour votes?
Well said, my next door neighbour is currently getting 1500 a month in housing benefit alone. Never worked a fucking day in her life, but can fuck off and leave three kids while she goes out and gets fucking pissed and laid Thursday thorough Sunday. Runs a car, home delivery of her shopping. I wonder how she'll cope on only 26k a year.If the government wasn't such a mess, they could move to a single benefit sooner. And paying an average wage is still a big number. Never mind 45k, no one should get fuck all above 26k, only the useless cunts couldn't implement it other than through the tax system.

Unfortunately, middle England is going to be the biggest loser, but they should never have benefitted in the first place. They got cash handouts for votes, now that is being taken away. The Labour party turned their natural working class voter base into middle England...turned them into the very people who don't naturally vote Labour. They created their own monster, and had to keep feeding it to win elections.Stopping benefit fraud and over-generous welfare system to the undeserved is another matter, but is part of the same problem ultimately. There is no fucking way someone on benefits should be able to afford to run a car. I grew up in a single parent family, and we got fuck all. But, we lived ok actually and went to a decent state school and got the bus and train everywhere.

heyho

I agree that over a certain amount benefits should cease BUT the issue is that it i sthere and to just remove them would be wrong.

I woudl be happy to lose my £100 or so a month I get so long as I have a bigger say in who still gets it i.e. carers and disabled but more to the point who i don't want to get it like half of Seacroft and Halton Moor.

gorefidel

Why is it wrong? Where do you think the 3bn a month we're spending more than we are taking in revenue goes? 30% of government expenditure goes on welfare in one form or another.

Either pay more tax or spend less. spending less and spending only on those in need works for me. I have as little inclination to sub a middle manager as I do a smack head. A least someone in work can go and work a bit harder to make up the money if they can be arses, rather than just be on the take the same way they criticise the doleys.

Mitaman

[quote=heyho]I agree that over a certain amount benefits should cease BUT the issue is that it i sthere and to just remove them would be wrong.

I woudl be happy to lose my £100 or so a month I get so long as I have a bigger say in who still gets it i.e. carers and disabled but more to the point who i don't want to get it like half of Seacroft and Halton Moor.[/quote]
But heyho, I don't think it is wrong.

Say for example, your bank had been crediting your account by GBP100 per month, in error. You had kept quiet for 2 years, but they had not noticed. Then all of a sudden, they noticed the error and sent you a letter to say, you can keep the money you have been given, but no more erroneous monies shall be paid to you. YOu would not moan, as really you were not entitled to the money in the first place.

It is exactly the same here, the government have been treating certain segments of society (read far too large a segment) to money that they should not have been paid in the first place. Hard I know, but that is my view.

king_of_the_slums

Thank god you've not got China rules; 1st kid full benefit, 2nd kid 50 % of benefit, 3rd kid no benefit, 4th kid 10% incease in tax on income. 3rd & 4th kid sometimes don't get registered at all to stop getting taxed.

Reggie_Perrin

gorefidel wrote:Why is it wrong? Where do you think the 3bn a month we're spending more than we are taking in revenue goes? 30% of government expenditure goes on welfare in one form or another.Either pay more tax or spend less. spending less and spending only on those in need works for me. I have as little inclination to sub a middle manager as I do a smack head. A least someone in work can go and work a bit harder to make up the money if they can be arses, rather than just be on the take the same way they criticise the doleys.

Child benefit can't be part of that fuck up as it's not new and additional. Why can't they just cap it at two kids and freeze any increases for starters see where that takes us.

gorefidel

Reggie Perrin wrote:
gorefidel wrote:Why is it wrong? Where do you think the 3bn a month we're spending more than we are taking in revenue goes? 30% of government expenditure goes on welfare in one form or another.Either pay more tax or spend less. spending less and spending only on those in need works for me. I have as little inclination to sub a middle manager as I do a smack head. A least someone in work can go and work a bit harder to make up the money if they can be arses, rather than just be on the take the same way they criticise the doleys.
Child benefit can't be part of that fuck up as it's not new and additional. Why can't they just cap it at two kids and freeze any increases for starters see where that takes us.

It's not different in any way, save you get rewarded for breeding. It's social security under different name. The only reason it was never means tested was because of the expense of admim. We pay for it in tax anyway, so I don't get the angst other than the fact a few of us will be out of pocket. It's the right thing to do. If they move allowances up to 10k, you'll get it back.