bingobob777 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I don't need this state money.I suspect there are millions that don't need this money. Why am I and millions of others given it? dont take it then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reck B Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share Posted September 30, 2009 I don't need it, but i'm certainly not giving it back, i pay enough in taxes to not feel guilty about accepting it Maybe if the government stopped spraying money at people who don't need it, we might just get lower taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reck B Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share Posted September 30, 2009 I don't need this state money. I suspect there are millions that don't need this money. Why am I and millions of others given it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearwithasorehead Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 because when people gain real power they become cowards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FortuneFTB Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I don't need it, but i'm certainly not giving it back, i pay enough in taxes to not feel guilty about accepting it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AteMoose Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Maybe if the government stopped spraying money at people who don't need it, we might just get lower taxes. Increased cash flow, more money going round in circles allows more money to be created, simple tax cuts don't make people spend more money than they earn/doesn't promote debt, big fluctuations in wages and extra money flying in and out will make people spend more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikthe20 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 because when people gain real power they become cowards Brilliant post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seydel Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 It's the state's reward for doing your bit to maintain the birth rate to ensure enough new system slaves come on stream to keep their fiat, debt-based, fractional reserving banking scheme is kept chugging along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worzel Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) I dont need it either, but will certainly be claiming it (baby due Nov). Just had a quick look at the HMRC website and for the first child its £20 a week. Still doesn't quite make up for the circa £50k tax I paid last year, but every little helps. Edited September 30, 2009 by worzel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurker07 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 perhaps they could consider pet benefits too? might help abandoned puppies and kitties etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveat Mortgagor Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Simple. They need to take it off you in order to give it back. If they didnt then how would they create non-jobs? (Who is this 'they') Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insidetrack Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 This benefit seems to discriminate against the childless. That must be illegal. I think I might persue a claim for child benefit for the 16 children I don't have. Even if I don't win, my legal aid laywer might give me some cash back. Dontcha just love the UK - free money for everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headmelter Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I don't need this state money.I suspect there are millions that don't need this money. Why am I and millions of others given it? It's not for you, it's for your kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurker07 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 This benefit seems to discriminate against the childless. That must be illegal. I think I might persue a claim for child benefit for the 16 children I don't have. Even if I don't win, my legal aid laywer might give me some cash back. Dontcha just love the UK - free money for everyone! it certainly discriminates against people who believe the world is over-populated and choose not to pop them out. Surely the human right laws cover this, they cover everything else???! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_duke_of_hazzard Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 If I don't get this money, how am I supposed to afford the ridiculous rent to live near a decent school? The organic food for my children? Or the baby yoga classes? Really, people need to think before they write. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbonic Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 This benefit seems to discriminate against the childless. That must be illegal. I think I might persue a claim for child benefit for the 16 children I don't have. Even if I don't win, my legal aid laywer might give me some cash back. Dontcha just love the UK - free money for everyone! Worked for these guys (until they got caught). "Benefit scam built £4m property empire AN illegal immigrant and his girlfriend were both jailed after amassing a £4 million property empire, following a benefit scam which lasted ten years. Nigerian Saheed Ladega, 38, who had already been deported once, teamed up with Oluwatosin Gbadebo, the mother of his five young children, to subject local authorities to nearly a decade of deceit. The couple used 26 false names to claim nearly £170,000 in housing and council tax benefits from Waltham Forest and Newham Councils. A large slice of the cash was used as deposits for 11 properties in Leytonstone and West Ham bought with mortgages in false names, Southwark Crown Court heard." Link LIAR LOANS, illegal immigrants, benefits fraud - stories' got the lot! Seriously though, I'd support a cut off for child bens at 2 kids - we need that for population replacement (more or less) - if you want more, then pay for 'em yourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsgate Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 The original idea behind child benefit was that it was paid (usually) direct to the mother. When it was first set up, this was important, because at that time, not many women (and few mothers) worked, and so they were dependent on their husbands being "generous" with giving his wife enough money from his pay-packet to feed the kids etc. Child benefit was set up like this to help women with the cost of child-rearing, by putting the money directly into their hands, not their husbands. It was universal because it was thought that even a bloke who was working might be stingy in terms of giving his wife enough "housekeeping". It has since become one of those benefits that is politically very dangerous to be seen to tamper with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_duke_of_hazzard Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 The original idea behind child benefit was that it was paid (usually) direct to the mother.When it was first set up, this was important, because at that time, not many women (and few mothers) worked, and so they were dependent on their husbands being "generous" with giving his wife enough money from his pay-packet to feed the kids etc. Child benefit was set up like this to help women with the cost of child-rearing, by putting the money directly into their hands, not their husbands. It was universal because it was thought that even a bloke who was working might be stingy in terms of giving his wife enough "housekeeping". It has since become one of those benefits that is politically very dangerous to be seen to tamper with. Now a supposedly socialist government believes it's in the best interests of everyone to force mothers out to work. As if childcare was not work. As if the only thing any sane woman would want to be is a frigging MP. I believe child benefit was originally given to the father. Women campaigned to have this changed. My mother-in-law was one of them. So this was not the original impetus behind child benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchbux Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 dont take it then With the Child Trust Fund voucher you have no choice. If after 12 months (iirc) you have not used the voucher to open an account in the childs name, then the government open one for them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Doesn't the bank also helpfully count this as income when you apply for a mortgage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!) Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Why am I and millions of others given it? to buy gold and silver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.