Income Of £100,000, Feels Losing Child Benefit Is Discrimination Against Her Kids

[Asheron]

I think we should all be paid the same there wouldn't be any bickering then.

This bickering is the start of class warfare exactly what the government wants.

[gf3]

I don't care for people on minimum wage. Do something about it.

Everyone has the chance to go from Minimum Wage to £100,000 a year.

Taxing the rich more & taking away their benefits is not helping anyone.

It's the Rich & Successful who create jobs in this country.

There are too many generous benefits for people who bum around and have no ambitions in life.

The only people we should be going after is the Super Elite Rich earning over £200,000,000 a year and paying 0% Tax and the useless bums that sit at home and scrounge because they are too embarrassed to clean toilets.

Going after someone earning £100,000 - £200,000 a year is just government theatre.

Why is it that VI's are so easy to spot?

oops looks in the mirror I'm a VI to.

Do you think if your children ended up on average salary’s you may change your mind?

[sigma]

£100,000 a year is not actually a lot of money. It may sound a lot to someone earning less.

The women is right.

It is discrimination.

The benefit should be for everyone or not at all.

£100,000 a year is loads of money and is only insufficient if you're using it poorly

[ska_mna]

Everyone has the chance to go from Minimum Wage to £100,000 a year.. .

No they don't. Effort + luck = success.

It's the Rich & Successful who create jobs in this country. .

No they don't. A functioning economy creates jobs.

Edit: fixed formatting

Edited January 4, 2013 by ska_mna

[Asheron]

Why is it that VI's are so easy to spot?

oops looks in the mirror I'm a VI to.

Do you think if your children ended up on average salary’s you may change your mind?

No because everyone has the chance to be successful.

Just because you are on minimum wage, it won't be forever and you should not be bitter about it.

You should be thinking how can I better myself? How can I earn £100,000 a year?

Wow I admire that guy who earns £100,000 a year, how can I be like him ?

Not = I'm jealous, let's tax that guy more and take away his benefits.

[Asheron]

No they don't. Effort + luck = success.

No they don't. A functioning economy creates jobs.

Edit: fixed formatting

Edited January 4, 2013 by Asheron

[sigma]

http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/narcissistic.htm ?

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

All benefits should be to feed, clothe and house you only in the most basic way if you fall on hard times. Maybe the only exception is properly disabled people.

Apart from that state pension.

Nothing more.

[the gardener]

No because everyone has the chance to be successful.

Just because you are on minimum wage, it won't be forever and you should not be bitter about it.

You should be thinking how can I better myself? How can I earn £100,000 a year?

Wow I admire that guy who earns £100,000 a year, how can I be like him ?

Not = I'm jealous, let's tax that guy more and take away his benefits.

Bullsheet.

Edited January 4, 2013 by the gardener

[SHERWICK]

All benefits should be to feed, clothe and house you only in the most basic way if you fall on hard times. Maybe the only exception is properly disabled people.

Apart from that state pension.

Nothing more.

Well I agree with you, but I seem to be the only one...

[dangermaus]

Well I agree with you, but I seem to be the only one...

Problem is if you give someone subsistence benefits, many will never be able to get a job.

for example how would someone who can't afford to travel/pay for petrol/insure their car possibly get a job where they'd need to drive to work?

I agree with you partially, I'd not complain if benefits were slashed massively for the people doing extremely well off the system, but if you cut them too low you screw the people who genuinely need them.

Besides, housing benefit + JSA (for say a single unemployed male) effectively isn't even enough to feed, cloth and house you.

Edited January 4, 2013 by dangermaus

[cybernoid]

Its not discriminating against kids, its discriminating against the parents who can afford to look after their kids without the benefit. Who loses the money here? Do these kids suddenly get fed less, or the do the parents have a little less disposable income to blow on whatever they fancy?

The country cant afford it anymore, tough. They should consider themselves fortunate to have got it in the first place.

[wherebee]

I'd be all for NO child benefit, with contraception implants if you are on benefits. As someone else has posted, basic accomodation and fodo to help those in need. Good tough schools for kids in such estates. No cash at all. If you are a trouble family, you lose accomodation and support and NHS and your kids get taken into care. Would take a generation, but you need humans to be terrified of having kids if they cannot afford them, or else you just end up swamped with the lower common denominator.

Edited January 5, 2013 by wherebee

[Dorkins]

Besides, housing benefit + JSA (for say a single unemployed male) effectively isn't even enough to feed, cloth and house you.

So what? We all know the tax and benefits system is designed to screw single working age males. That doesn't prove that it isn't absurdly generous to other kinds of people.

[gf3]

So what? We all know the tax and benefits system is designed to screw single working age males. That doesn't prove that it isn't absurdly generous to other kinds of people.

Not totally fair single working age females (no kids) get the same.

And I can't even blame the tory's that I don't have a womb.

[Goat]

Not totally fair single working age females (no kids) get the same.

Difference is that single working age females (no kids) don't tend to stay on JSA for long; either they find a 1/2 decent job or they drop the (no kids) tag.

[gf3]

I agree to the extent that you describe most people. They don't realise they twist their own thoughts to support their VI.

Typically wrapped up in hard felt oral language but when you boil down to their VI, it is amazing how often they align.

all most every opinion I hold on tax and welfare would make me better off. and I consider my onions balanced

well at least I question my self.

[EUBanana]

This bickering is the start of class warfare exactly what the government wants.

The only warfare going on here is me versus the thieving ba$tard state.

Cry me a fecking river. I would vote for Satan Himself if he would significantly cut tax. Frankly, I couldn't care less if all the BBC showed for six months was sob stories showing babies being bayoneted due to cuts.

The current state of affairs is barking mad and flat out malicious. These scum can get out of my wallet and stop subsidising people's lifestyle choices. Public services, common goods, my ar5e.

[Si1]

No because everyone has the chance to be successful.

Just because you are on minimum wage, it won't be forever and you should not be bitter about it.

You should be thinking how can I better myself? How can I earn £100,000 a year?

Wow I admire that guy who earns £100,000 a year, how can I be like him ?

Not = I'm jealous, let's tax that guy more and take away his benefits.

you born and brought up somewhere handy to, or in, London by any chance?

[Si1]

I agree to the extent that you describe most people. They don't realise they twist their own thoughts to support their VI.

Typically wrapped up in hard felt moral language but when you boil down to their VI, it is amazing how often they align.

true

but to add: this country's twisted tax system is an invite for the corrupt, being eminently gameable, and to add to that the effective tax of planning contraints in the SE, I can see why someone on 100k in that neck of the woods could feel poorly done by, especially if they earn that 100k in an open manner and are honest in their tax and business affairs, seeing that liars and cheats seem to have done better

Edited January 5, 2013 by Si1

[Bloo Loo]

I don't care for people on minimum wage. Do something about it.

Everyone has the chance to go from Minimum Wage to £100,000 a year.

Taxing the rich more & taking away their benefits is not helping anyone.

It's the Rich & Successful who create jobs in this country.

There are too many generous benefits for people who bum around and have no ambitions in life.

The only people we should be going after is the Super Elite Rich earning over £200,000,000 a year and paying 0% Tax and the useless bums that sit at home and scrounge because they are too embarrassed to clean toilets.

Going after someone earning £100,000 - £200,000 a year is just government theatre.

This is not a tax on the rich. Its a removal of a benefit from those who done need it.

the way this particular benefit has been treated though...thats another issue entirely

[easy2012]

true

but to add: this country's twisted tax system is an invite for the corrupt, being eminently gameable, and to add to that the effective tax of planning contraints in the SE, I can see why someone on 100k in that neck of the woods could feel poorly done by, especially if they earn that 100k in an open manner and are honest in their tax and business affairs, seeing that liars and cheats seem to have done better

Indeed. Had it is her husband who is based in Switzerland / Qatar / UAE / Saudi who earns that £100k (i.e. non residence, and hence non UK tax payer) - she would have kept the CB.

CB withdrawal at 50k-60k and the personal allowance withdrawal at 100-115k (now 120k ) are 2 anomalies introduced by politicians (one by Mr Darling - Labour, one by Osborne - Cons) to hide their political 'promises' regardless how much external cost (cash and time/compliance) those actions impose on other - as long as it looks 'good'.

Withdrawal of EU 'rebate' (CB = rebate) was counted as increased contribution (i.e. tax) the last time round...

Edited January 5, 2013 by easy2012

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

This is not a tax on the rich. Its a removal of a benefit from those who done need it.

the way this particular benefit has been treated though...thats another issue entirely

I don't have a problem with benefits not going to people who don't need them - really they should have a minimum benefit provision for the disabled, sick and old and yes even something for the kids, but all other benefits should just be phased out - partly because they skew the economy and secondly because they cause personal disincentives. Look at LHA, who do you think pockets most of that?

The problem I was pointing out by my references to £50-60k and £100-115k is the massive disincentive created by very high marginal tax rates. I personally favour a progressive tax system, ie the better off pay more and higher percentage on their top marginal earnings, right now that is not we have. We have a system that wants to trap people below either £60k or £115k as two examples, meanwhile if I were lucky enough to earn £500k I can employ various schemes to get around paying my fair share.

[Bloo Loo]

I don't have a problem with benefits not going to people who don't need them - really they should have a minimum benefit provision for the disabled, sick and old and yes even something for the kids, but all other benefits should just be phased out - partly because they skew the economy and secondly because they cause personal disincentives. Look at LHA, who do you think pockets most of that?

The problem I was pointing out by my references to £50-60k and £100-115k is the massive disincentive created by very high marginal tax rates. I personally favour a progressive tax system, ie the better off pay more and higher percentage on their top marginal earnings, right now that is not we have. We have a system that wants to trap people below either £60k or £115k as two examples, meanwhile if I were lucky enough to earn £500k I can employ various schemes to get around paying my fair share.

Im having trouble with just what the "disincentive" actually is, of which you speak.

Is it someone stops working once they have earned x?

Is it they refuse to take more once they reach x?

Is it something else of which they have control that they stop?....If this is the case, just how will they ever reach the Nervana of £500K?

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

Im having trouble with just what the "disincentive" actually is, of which you speak.

Is it someone stops working once they have earned x?

Is it they refuse to take more once they reach x?

Is it something else of which they have control that they stop?....If this is the case, just how will they ever reach the Nervana of £500K?

There is plenty of disincentive. The simple one is that if someone needed to change job to get a raise, would they necessarily make the move say from £50k to £55k given that it would wipe out half their child benefit in addition to paying 40% on the raise. The same argument could also be applied to taking on promotions with more responsibility, working longer hours or even making business trips to bring in extra sales/commission.

Bloo Loo I can't understand why you seem to be arguing for a tax and benefits system with huge speed bumps in it. Really there should just be one universal system, the majority of separate benefits should be abolished and citizens wage should be created, there after people pay tax on there earnings at a progressive rate.

The argument about having or not having children is also a red herring. Whilst those without kids may say "why should those with get extra money", those with kids could equally say "why should my kids pay the pensions of those who didn't have kids" - How's that for a provocative idea, no state pension for people without kids - oh hang on I can see flaw in the plan already.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Mikhail Liebenstein