|
Post by keithyshrew25 on Oct 10, 2010 21:52:02 GMT 1
How many single parent families do you know where the individual earns more than £45k a year?!
Yes it's a bit off-target but if you earn £45k a year you should be able to look after your own kids. It's definitely a necessary cut in teh current climate
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Oct 11, 2010 12:19:18 GMT 1
Trouble is Keithy, I think a lot of people spend what they earn; I don't think disposable income levels vary greatly with set income, more with how responsible a person is with their money.
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Oct 11, 2010 14:08:07 GMT 1
if you earn £45k a year you should be able to look after your own kids. It's definitely a necessary cut in teh current climate Maybe but shouldn't a couple, earning a combined £80,000 a year, be able to look after their kids too?
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 11, 2010 17:05:36 GMT 1
Maybe but shouldn't a couple, earning a combined £80,000 a year, be able to look after their kids too? You gotta love the way the media and Labour are banding that figure about like it is commonplace. A rarity. Well done the Condems for at least trying to tackle benefits.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Oct 11, 2010 17:27:35 GMT 1
Maybe but shouldn't a couple, earning a combined £80,000 a year, be able to look after their kids too? You gotta love the way the media and Labour are banding that figure about like it is commonplace. A rarity. Well done the Condems for at least trying to tackle benefits. What about the ConDem using £45k as the level at which parents will lose child benefit whereas the reality is that by 2015 the higher tax band is likely to come in at less than £40k. Someone earning £50k a year with 3 children will lose over £4k in cuts already announced equivalent to over 10% of their take home pay. Afraid its not even a honourable failure by the ConDems much nearer an Eddie the Eagle failure.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 11, 2010 17:34:34 GMT 1
I would say that I would have preferred means testing as the preferred alternative. I am led to believe that this would have been too costly ?
Ed, do you see Child Benefit as a right for all ?
I firmly believe it is a luxury (with some exceptions) we can ill afford thus has to be cut, there is probably no fair - ergonomic way to do so.
I am glad though the coalition government is attempting to tackle the issue.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Oct 11, 2010 18:16:09 GMT 1
do you see Child Benefit as a right for all ? I firmly believe it is a luxury (with some exceptions) we can ill afford thus has to be cut, there is probably no fair - ergonomic way to do so. I am glad though the coalition government is attempting to tackle the issue. The problem for me is that child benefit is currently a universal benefit, and by cutting it, even from families who could arguably afford to loose it, you are fundamentally changing a basic pillar of the welfare state. Now could well be the time to do that due to the economic situation, but neither the conservatives and certainly the lib dems were elected with a mandate to do such a thing. I just feel a lot of things are being forced through under the guise of the economy, but with no real understanding of the long term impacts the changes will bring. This seems a classic example with benefits advisors warning the changes will be hard to implement and may not actually make significant savings.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 11, 2010 18:44:20 GMT 1
The problem for me is that child benefit is currently a universal benefit, and by cutting it, even from families who could arguably afford to loose it, you are fundamentally changing a basic pillar of the welfare state. Now could well be the time to do that due to the economic situation, but neither the conservatives and certainly the lib dems were elected with a mandate to do such a thing. I just feel a lot of things are being forced through under the guise of the economy, but with no real understanding of the long term impacts the changes will bring. This seems a classic example with benefits advisors warning the changes will be hard to implement and may not actually make significant savings. Some excellent points Matt, for Ed and others to pop at the ConDems is a little shallow as prior to the election Mr Brown had refused a spending review which would have given greater clarity. That said it would have been a sure vote loser for the Condems to have said so, yet Labour have no answer just the same old drivel of "tax the rich". So in answer to your point I agree the ConDems may well push other issues through under the headline of recession....remember "Good day to bury bad news" anyone ? Thing is with child benefits on a personal level, we received them and in fairness viewed them as a luxury. We didn't need them we liked them ! IMO It's the same for the vast majority in this country, they do not need them to feed and provide basic facilities. As for not making a great difference to the economy, I feel this is just the start.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Oct 11, 2010 18:50:32 GMT 1
As for not making a great difference to the economy, I feel this is just the start. That's my big worry! Thin end of the wedge? We'll (regrettably) find out in due course.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Oct 11, 2010 22:36:09 GMT 1
I just hope the Condem government continue to address the issue of benefits in the same thorough, balanced and discetionary way they have dealt with child benefit...will sure as hell bring them down in the end.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Oct 14, 2010 15:27:45 GMT 1
Ed, do you see Child Benefit as a right for all ? Stu, Yes I believe that Child Benefit is currently a right of all, and should remain until it is replaced by something that is fair which undoubtedly the ConDem proposals are not. I'd be interested in whether you believe it is fair that a family with 2 children bringing home just over £2,500 a month should have their income reduced by 6% at a stroke. In my mind, in many areas of the country, an income of just above £30000 is not rich. Yes we have to reduce the deficit but the only reason to do it in 4 years are party political. There are many ways the deficit could be reduced that would not harm those who can least afford it. And now it seems the least well off in society will have their cold weather payments reduced from £25 per week to £8.50 now is that fair.
|
|